Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

< taken by the void dragon >

Those statistics are upsetting. Thanks for educating us about the significance of the day.

Thankyou for telling me about this day, I wasn't aware of it. It's sad that there needs to be a rememberance day, and that the primary issue for transgendered people is as victims. Hopefully with more community understanding that will change.

Che-Vito wrote:- 12 states provide protection for "gender identity" for employment and housing. 21 states (including the earlier 12) protect only sexual orientation. That means, in 32 states, it is legal for an employer to fire you for being transgender.

Wouldn't it be 29 states that don't? As in 50 - 21 is 29.

Sorry for the nitpick, but I'm wondering if I might have missed something. At either 29 or 32, it's a terrible stat.

sebster wrote:Thankyou for telling me about this day, I wasn't aware of it. It's sad that there needs to be a rememberance day, and that the primary issue for transgendered people is as victims. Hopefully with more community understanding that will change.

Che-Vito wrote:- 12 states provide protection for "gender identity" for employment and housing. 21 states (including the earlier 12) protect only sexual orientation. That means, in 32 states, it is legal for an employer to fire you for being transgender.

Wouldn't it be 29 states that don't? As in 50 - 21 is 29.

Sorry for the nitpick, but I'm wondering if I might have missed something. At either 29 or 32, it's a terrible stat.

Actually, i'd say 38. (50 - 12)

DakkaDakka wrote:

Che-Vito wrote:It is very unfortunate. The TDOR events held nationwide are often held as vigils. They are very touching moments, but do not focus purely on a "victim mentality". The one in Columbus, for example had the theme of "Remember, Honor, Empower."

Damn straight. Got a long way to go, but there's progress made every day.

sebster wrote:I need to rewrite that part.
First off, my math did suck.

Secondly, it is poorly worded.
It should read, "21 states provide protections for sexual orientation in regard to employment and housing, 29 states do not. 12 of those 21 states provide similar protections on the basis of gender identity, leaving 38 states with no protections."

Ah, thanks for the clarification. Jesus Christ, that figure is terrible... 38 states where you can be kicked out of your house because the landlord doesn't like your gender identity...

While I'm all for equality, I don't think we need a day dedicated to every single cause of a stigmatized minority group.

Unless we are changing the name to Eddie Izzard day, then I'll support it 100% and will head up the parade committee.

< taken by the void dragon >

Che-Vito wrote:

Aerethan wrote:While I'm all for equality, I don't think we need a day dedicated to every single cause of a stigmatized minority group.

Unless we are changing the name to Eddie Izzard day, then I'll support it 100% and will head up the parade committee.

A few years ago, when I felt pretty settled in to a pretty solid majority (white, heterosexual, middle class), I would've agreed. It seems to mean less when there is a Day, Week, or Month for just about everything. While some of them can be mildly absurd (for example, the U.N. named 2012 "The Year of Cooperatives" and "The Year of Sustainable Energy for All"), TDOR is a time to point out some of the realities to those who may be unaware, in hopes that the information will continue to spread.

I'm glad that TDOR has it's day of the year though. Some state's treatment of transgender individuals is some of the absolute worst in this country.

Key example, that is close to my heart? Ohio.
Transgender persons in Ohio can *never* change their birth certificate without a change of state law.

Now what does that mean?
First off, it means that you'll be "out" to any employer or potential until that law is changed. In 38 states (including Ohio), that gives them open season to not hire/fire/etc. because of it. It delegitimizes your gender preference in a not-so-subtle way. [As a side note: the "not hire" portion may seem odd, but there are more than a handful of stories of individuals getting offered jobs, the potential hire saying that they are transgender, and then the boss rescinding the offer.]

While I understand what you're saying but there's difference from what gender you are biologically speaking and how you perceive what gender you are.

I'm on board for the whole job bit, but the surgeries are optional. It is not a life or death ordeal, merely one being unhappy with their appearance, and wanting to change it as they see fit.

Now again I'm all for people doing what they want with their bodies, but the consequences of those actions one takes on their own body are purely their own to suffer.

I'm not trying to devalue their personal struggle with their own appearance, but that struggle and it's consequences are their own to deal with.

Che-Vito wrote:

Key example, that is close to my heart? Ohio.
Transgender persons in Ohio can *never* change their birth certificate without a change of state law.

Now what does that mean?
First off, it means that you'll be "out" to any employer or potential until that law is changed. In 38 states (including Ohio), that gives them open season to not hire/fire/etc. because of it. It delegitimizes your gender preference in a not-so-subtle way. [As a side note: the "not hire" portion may seem odd, but there are more than a handful of stories of individuals getting offered jobs, the potential hire saying that they are transgender, and then the boss rescinding the offer.

I am addressing the bolded bit.


It’s a thorny issue for sure with regards to employment, you could make some (what imo the average American would consider "reasonable") arguments either way. On one hand the rights of the individual are not being served, on the other hand it has the potential to adversely affect the business.

In my opinion any potential love interest/life partner has the right to know if you are a transgender individual.

Aerethan wrote:I'm on board for the whole job bit.

I think it depends really I think it makes more sense for businesses to judge there employee's by what gender they are biologically at least for ID purposes, although for improving work relationships within the

company one should address them by the said person's preferred gender.

Having been in a relationship with a transgendered lady (mtf) I appreciate this. Thanks

Aerethan wrote:I'm on board for the whole job bit, but the surgeries are optional. It is not a life or death ordeal, merely one being unhappy with their appearance, and wanting to change it as they see fit.

I don't know dude, gender is a lot more than just appearance. If I was forced to live every day as something I am not, I'd find that a lot more confronting than merely being 'unhappy with my appearance'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ma55ter_fett wrote:It’s a thorny issue for sure with regards to employment, you could make some (what imo the average American would consider "reasonable") arguments either way. On one hand the rights of the individual are not being served, on the other hand it has the potential to adversely affect the business.

Exactly what are these adverse risks, that a racist couldn't equally apply to hiring a black person?

In my opinion any potential love interest/life partner has the right to know if you are a transgender individual.

Absolutely. Do you think there's a great mass of transgendered people out there looking to trick other people into having sex with them? Isn't it more the case that they're often reluctant to publically live transgendered lives, because of the risks that involve, or tell potential partners straight away, because telling the wrong person could get you killed?

Cheesecat wrote:

Aerethan wrote:I'm on board for the whole job bit.

I think it depends really I think it makes more sense for businesses to judge there employee's by what gender they are biologically at least for ID purposes, although for improving work relationships within the

company one should address them by the said person's preferred gender.

How does that make more sense?

@fett
How will businesses be adversely affected by hiring a transgender person?

@Aerethan
It's a bit more complex than just not liking the way you look. Imagine you woke up one day and everyone treated you like the opposite gender. That'd be a pretty rough situation to deal with.

@Che-Vito
What is the correct term for an androgynous Slaaneshi daemon?

< taken by the void dragon >

RustyKnight wrote:

Cheesecat wrote:

Aerethan wrote:I'm on board for the whole job bit.

I think it depends really I think it makes more sense for businesses to judge there employee's by what gender they are biologically at least for ID purposes, although for improving work relationships within the

company one should address them by the said person's preferred gender.

How does that make more sense?

@fett
How will businesses be adversely affected by hiring a transgender person?

@Aerethan
It's a bit more complex than just not liking the way you look. Imagine you woke up one day and everyone treated you like the opposite gender. That'd be a pretty rough situation to deal with.

@Che-Vito
What is the correct term for an androgynous Slaaneshi daemon?

Say you're looking someone with the name Joe Bob who identifies himself as a woman but physically speaking he's a dude if the guys looking for Joe Bob were searching for a person described as a

"woman" they may never find him because Joe Bob doesn't resemble a woman.

There's no other word in the English language suitable for describing something that has no gender though (in this specific context and usage). A fiend of slaanesh isn't a human with a gender; it's a fragment of a god that spits in the face of gender and sex as we understand them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Cheesecat wrote:Say you're looking someone with the name Joe Bob who identifies himself as a woman but physically speaking he's a dude if the guys looking for Joe Bob were searching for a person described as a

"woman" they may never find him because Joe Bob doesn't resemble a woman.

If she's a woman, why is she calling herself Joe Bob?

Che-Vito wrote:

Cheesecat wrote:
While I understand what you're saying but there's difference from what gender you are biologically speaking and how you perceive what gender you are.

Please differentiate between "sex" and "gender". They are not interchangable.

Sex and gender are synonyms.

Cheesecat wrote:

Che-Vito wrote:

Cheesecat wrote:
While I understand what you're saying but there's difference from what gender you are biologically speaking and how you perceive what gender you are.

Please differentiate between "sex" and "gender". They are not interchangable.

Sex and gender are synonyms.

They may be used interchangeably colloquially, but that doesn't change the fact that they mean distinct things.

Cheesecat wrote:

Che-Vito wrote:

Cheesecat wrote:
While I understand what you're saying but there's difference from what gender you are biologically speaking and how you perceive what gender you are.

Please differentiate between "sex" and "gender". They are not interchangable.

Sex and gender are synonyms.

Not true at all. There are 5 sexes and 2 genders iirc.

DakkaDakka wrote:

Che-Vito wrote:

Cheesecat wrote:

Say you're looking someone with the name Joe Bob who identifies himself as a woman but physically speaking he's a dude if the guys looking for Joe Bob were searching for a person described as a

"woman" they may never find him because Joe Bob doesn't resemble a woman.

That is where the argument can get more academic, into the realm of "removing gender" from society.

I'm not sure removing gender from society is entirety possible because it plays a huge role in humans sexuality, anatomy, identity, etc gender is pretty important gak.

RustyKnight wrote:

Cheesecat wrote:

Aerethan wrote:I'm on board for the whole job bit.

I think it depends really I think it makes more sense for businesses to judge there employee's by what gender they are biologically at least for ID purposes, although for improving work relationships within the

company one should address them by the said person's preferred gender.

How does that make more sense?

@fett
How will businesses be adversely affected by hiring a transgender person?

@Aerethan
It's a bit more complex than just not liking the way you look. Imagine you woke up one day and everyone treated you like the opposite gender. That'd be a pretty rough situation to deal with.

@Che-Vito
What is the correct term for an androgynous Slaaneshi daemon?

I know where this is heading… I will eventually be attacked for supposedly holding a view that is actually no my own. I have no problem with the idea that a transgender person should be allowed to change their birth certificate to reflect their preferred gender and withhold the nature of their true biological gender from their employers. I have no problem with it.

However I am saying that an employer could very well have a different opinion from me, and I have a notion what their objections might be. The following is what I believe to be the state of the world at the moment, the way things work, for better or for worse.

There are people who are uncomfortable with transgender persons. Just as there are people who are uncomfortable around homosexual persons or persons of different races. Its not pretty but it is a factor that a business owner must think about.

An example, A transgender person applies for a job as a marketing exec. They get the job. Later it comes out in casual conversation or a meeting that they are transgender and somehow word gets out and potential customers hear of it. Potential customers express unease around this transgender individual, maybe they are from a foreign country, maybe they are homophobic, maybe they have religious reasons. Either way the transgender marketing exec is not able to overcome this barrier that has arisen and cannot gain the clients trust/respect, so the client goes to another company.

I personally would have no problem dealing with a transgender individual, but you cannot claim that there are others who won't.

Another example

A transgender person is hired in a factory. Somehow the coworkers find out the person is transgender. The coworkers are uneasy with the idea of working with a transgender person. They take to harassing this transgender coworker. It reaches the point where management has to step in and fire several of the other coworkers for harassing the transgender worker.

You can look at this in two ways

1) Those workers who were fired for workplace harassment were jerks and deserved what they got

2) Because they hired a transgender individual management was eventually forced to fire a number of good, productive workers, the transgender person while not at fault is still seen by the management as being responsible for the problems just because they happened to be there.


One way is the moral/ethical/right way to view the situation

One is that way employer would see the situation.



Its not right, its not fair, its discrimination plain and simple... but employers will take the safe bet every time.

DakkaDakka wrote:

I honestly always forget this day exists. I know, or have known several trans people, mts, ftm, and both to neither, and 2 intersexed persons. I also rent a room to a transwoman.

Life has been difficult on the majority of them. The ftm or f to neither, not as much, because this society as a whole accept masculine women much more than feminine men.

Almost all trans issues are going to be pretty difficult for the average person to really understand.

Sex and Gender are not really interchangable terms anymore. Lots of people use them as if they were, but sex is for genitalia, and gender is for self identity.

On an interesting legal note. Most countries around the world do not list "sex" on a drivers license, or even a passport, at least thats my understanding.

On a more interesting social note regarding North America. Long ago on this continent, transpeople existed, and they were treated as valuable members of society. They were accepted, as was pretty much everyone, because you needed everyones help in the group for the group to survive. Transpeople fit into every role in a tribe, from chief on down.

How far we have gone...

Che-Vito wrote:[Indeed. There really is no need to attach gender in that case, but people tend to on this forum in a joking fashion, generally along the lines of comments about "...he, or she...or erm...it, I guess."

The humour there has nothing to do with the LGBTQ community; it comes from the fact that creature in question has physical traits of both sexes (note to Cheesecat, actually typed "gender" there instead of "sex," but corrected it as it was incorrect) yet fits into neither sex. In that case, "it" is the correct term to apply. I do see how that joke could offend, but I think it's benign enough to not merit question.

DakkaDakka wrote:

Ma55ter_fett wrote:Another example

A transgender person is hired in a factory. Somehow the coworkers find out the person is transgender. The coworkers are uneasy with the idea of working with a transgender person. They take to harassing this transgender coworker. It reaches the point where management has to step in and fire several of the other coworkers for harassing the transgender worker.

You can look at this in two ways

1) Those workers who were fired for workplace harassment were jerks and deserved what they got

2) Because they hired a transgender individual management was eventually forced to fire a number of good, productive workers, the transgender person while not at fault is still seen by the management as being responsible for the problems just because they happened to be there.


One way is the moral/ethical/right way to view the situation

One is that way employer would see the situation.



Its not right, its not fair, its discrimination plain and simple... but employers will take the safe bet every time.

Again, though, how is that different to management no hiring a black dude because some of their workers are or might be racist?

"You have to put up with discrimination because we can't be bothered with dealing with our bigotry" is serious bs.

Shadowseer_Kim wrote:

Sex and Gender are not really interchangable terms anymore. Lots of people use them as if they were, but sex is for genitalia, and gender is for self identity.

You know the word "gender" has more than one definition right?

http://www.google.ca/search?q=molarity&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&client=firefox-a#hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&q=gender&tbs=dfn:1&tbo=u&sa=X&ei=uxDGTriCFMmpiQKtu5zlDw&sqi=2&ved=0CCQQkQ4&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=10539f2b624eed6&biw=1440&bih=728