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.
d-usa wrote: A lot of people are very uncomfortable seeing KKK rallies.
People do get upset by KKK rallies. We don't make it illegal to be a member of the KKK and we don't make it illegal for the KKK to hold rallies in public spaces but we also don't try to publically shame people who object to KKK rallies to be silent and not voice their displeasure because their opinion is "wrong."
People should be able to discern the difference between objecting to how people conduct themselves at a public event and objecting to the actual people holding the public event. Perception affects reality and how you advocate for a cause is just as important as the cause itself when you're trying to affect public opinion.
If you do a quick google search for ESPN ombudsman or ESPN public editor you'll find that a good number of the columns written by the various ombudsmen that have worked for ESPN have been regarding ESPN's seemingly nebulous and arbitrary standards for personal behavior and journalistic standards. It seems to be that ESPN will punish employees for jeopardizing profitable relationships the network has with sports leagues, like the NFL, or for saying/doing something that creates enough outrage on social media to create bad PR for the network. It's not very clear when the analysts they hire can't voice private opinions and when they can.
It does make one wonder just where the line is with privacy regarding personal opinions for people who have jobs on tv. ESPN has sports analysts, Schilling was hired to talk about and opine about baseball. That was his only role on the network. He was never given air time or column inches to put out his personal politcal or cultural opinions and his personal political/cultural opinions have no bearing on his work as a baseball analysts. It's apples and oranges. How does his political opinions impact his ability to analyze major leage baseball players? It doesn't. It has nothing to do with his ability to do his job so why is it a fireable offense? He's not a spokesperson for ESPN, he's not putting those opinoins out on ESPN broadcasts or ESPN websites. Why would any sane rational person believe that Curt Schilling's personal opinions are representative of the offical positions of the ESPN corporation? Schilling doesn't have any power in the company and company isn't condoning or endorsing his personal opinions as their own.
Is the standard in the US now that if an employee puts a personal opinion out on their personal twitter account on their own personal off work time that their employee can take issue with that opinion and fire that employee? Is this a standard only for employees who are on tv? Is there some threshold of twitter followers or facebook friends that once crossed makes people "public figures" and they can be fired from their job if their employer doesn't like what gets tweeted or posted even if it has nothing to do with the company or their work?
I have coworkers that (for some unfathomable reason) are Trump supporters. If they tweet out some of Trump's speeches or claims or post them on their personal facebook pages should our employer fire them for expressing controversial, some might say racist, political opinions?
Thank you so much for posting this.
I have seen people fired for expressing personal thoughts and experiences on their FB accounts.
One worker has an anaphylactic reaction to bleach...the contact and even smell of it could potentially kill her. People are aware of this. Work was aware of this.
At work, someone in her area cleaned with bleach and she had to go to use her epi-pen.
On her FB account she ranted about what happened..without saying "my employer" or "my co workers" or any really identifying information. Granted...it wouldn't take a rocket scientist to know that this happened at work.
I have seen people fired for expressing personal thoughts and experiences on their FB accounts.
One worker has an anaphylactic reaction to bleach...the contact and even smell of it could potentially kill her. People are aware of this. Work was aware of this.
At work, someone in her area cleaned with bleach and she had to go to use her epi-pen.
On her FB account she ranted about what happened..without saying "my employer" or "my co workers" or any really identifying information. Granted...it wouldn't take a rocket scientist to know that this happened at work.
She was fired because of that post.
I perceive this differently than the Schilling incident.
She was complaining about an incident actually at work and about her work place. I can see how that could cause problems.
Schilling was giving a personal opinion about nothing to do with his job, his job description or about his workplace at all.
To me, there is a difference.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/04/22 15:39:04
If you do a quick google search for ESPN ombudsman or ESPN public editor you'll find that a good number of the columns written by the various ombudsmen that have worked for ESPN have been regarding ESPN's seemingly nebulous and arbitrary standards for personal behavior and journalistic standards. It seems to be that ESPN will punish employees for jeopardizing profitable relationships the network has with sports leagues, like the NFL, or for saying/doing something that creates enough outrage on social media to create bad PR for the network. It's not very clear when the analysts they hire can't voice private opinions and when they can.
It does make one wonder just where the line is with privacy regarding personal opinions for people who have jobs on tv. ESPN has sports analysts, Schilling was hired to talk about and opine about baseball. That was his only role on the network. He was never given air time or column inches to put out his personal politcal or cultural opinions and his personal political/cultural opinions have no bearing on his work as a baseball analysts. It's apples and oranges. How does his political opinions impact his ability to analyze major leage baseball players? It doesn't. It has nothing to do with his ability to do his job so why is it a fireable offense? He's not a spokesperson for ESPN, he's not putting those opinoins out on ESPN broadcasts or ESPN websites. Why would any sane rational person believe that Curt Schilling's personal opinions are representative of the offical positions of the ESPN corporation? Schilling doesn't have any power in the company and company isn't condoning or endorsing his personal opinions as their own.
Is the standard in the US now that if an employee puts a personal opinion out on their personal twitter account on their own personal off work time that their employee can take issue with that opinion and fire that employee? Is this a standard only for employees who are on tv? Is there some threshold of twitter followers or facebook friends that once crossed makes people "public figures" and they can be fired from their job if their employer doesn't like what gets tweeted or posted even if it has nothing to do with the company or their work?
I have coworkers that (for some unfathomable reason) are Trump supporters. If they tweet out some of Trump's speeches or claims or post them on their personal facebook pages should our employer fire them for expressing controversial, some might say racist, political opinions?
Thank you so much for posting this.
I have seen people fired for expressing personal thoughts and experiences on their FB accounts.
One worker has an anaphylactic reaction to bleach...the contact and even smell of it could potentially kill her. People are aware of this. Work was aware of this.
At work, someone in her area cleaned with bleach and she had to go to use her epi-pen.
On her FB account she ranted about what happened..without saying "my employer" or "my co workers" or any really identifying information. Granted...it wouldn't take a ricket scientist to know that this happened at work.
She was fired because of that post.
That's a tricky example since it involved an incident at work. Would she have gotten fired if instead of FB rant about that work incident she did a FB rant about how anthropomorphic climate change is a lie? Something totally unrelated to her job but could be upsetting to some people.
IF someone has gone to the lengths of replacing their penis with a vagina, as well as other femanizing surgeries...then you know what...I am OK with them using the ladies room.
Or if a female surgically alters her body to become that of a male, displaying the male reproductive parts....I am OK with them using the men's room.
100% agree with this. No arguments from me about this at all.
You do realise it takes a set, long time of hormone therapy before doctors consider allowing the surgery to correct the outward genitalia and that such surgery is very complex, such that it is very expensive and requires a specialist surgeon?
After the hormone therapy, it is (depending on when the therapy started) often impossible to identify a pre-op trans from a non-trans without looking down their underwear. So you are saying people who look like this:
Spoiler:
have to use the mens bathroom whilst people who look like this:
Spoiler:
have to use the womens.
Do you see how completely idiotic that is? Who do you think your daughters would rather see in the ladies bathroom? Who would you rather see walking out of the ladies bathroom whilst your daughters were inside?
Many trans people are more likely to be accused of being in the "wrong" bathroom by going into the one which they (currently) have the "correct" genitalia for. That is why the laws requiring them to do that are idiotic. And what is to prevent a non-trans man to go into the ladies after this law and claim that he has to be in there as he's a pre-op trans? Are you actually going to check peoples genitalia on entering the bathroom? If anything this law actually makes it easier for people to go into the bathroom which is for people of the opposite gender as people will, if the trans community actually follow the law, become much more accustomed to seeing apparently masculine people in the womens bathroom. So the law actually does the opposite of what it intends to.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2016/04/22 15:59:56
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
d-usa wrote: A lot of people are very uncomfortable seeing KKK rallies.
People do get upset by KKK rallies. We don't make it illegal to be a member of the KKK and we don't make it illegal for the KKK to hold rallies in public spaces but we also don't try to publically shame people who object to KKK rallies to be silent and not voice their displeasure because their opinion is "wrong."
People should be able to discern the difference between objecting to how people conduct themselves at a public event and objecting to the actual people holding the public event. Perception affects reality and how you advocate for a cause is just as important as the cause itself when you're trying to affect public opinion.
If I could, I would buy you a drink, sir.
I am glad we all agree now that the government shouldn't ban a public gathering just because you find it offensive or because it makes you uncomfortable.
For the rest of us: at some point we need to realize that if we all keep on responding to the same people who do nothing except repeat the same point over and over again regardless of how many times it has been countered, and regardless of how off-topic it is to the actual topic of the thread, we really only have ourselves to blame for these kind of threads.
You do realise it takes a set, long time of hormone therapy before doctors consider allowing the surgery to correct the outward genitalia and that such surgery is very complex, such that it is very expensive and requires a specialist surgeon?
Now wait a minute. Do they want to be the opposite sex or not?
This is where the argument falls apart.
If you have female parts and you want to be male, well, there are options to make sure that happens. Maybe rather than screaming and yelling about what bathroom they should use and getting legislation around that, they should focus more on getting legislation passed to make it easier to have gender reassignment.
You want to be a man? Get your parts changed. You want to be a woman? Get your parts changed.
So rather than changing what you can about you (gender reassignment) you expect everyone else to change to accommodate you. This isn't about accommodating a disability or special needs, either.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/04/22 16:22:22
You do realise it takes a set, long time of hormone therapy before doctors consider allowing the surgery to correct the outward genitalia and that such surgery is very complex, such that it is very expensive and requires a specialist surgeon?
No wait a minute. Do they want to be the opposite sex or not?
This is where the argument falls apart.
If you have female parts and you want to be male, well, there are options to make sure that happens. Maybe rather than screaming and yelling about what bathroom they should use and getting legislation around that, they should focus more on getting legislation passed to make it easier to have gender reassignment.
You want to be a man? Get your parts changed. You want to be a woman? Get your parts changed.
I think the relative ease or complexity of gender reassignment surgeries is a matter best left to doctors and patients with as little legislative inference from the govt (state or local) as possible.
I don't see the problem with the way things worked before. We have "Mens" and "Womens" bathrooms. There's nothing stopping people from walking into whichever one they choose to enter. All the things that I wouldn't want another person in a public restroom with me to be doing (transgender or otherwise) are already illegal so all the legal protectionswe need have been in effect for a long time.
The thing about public restroom that creeps me out is the shockingly high number of people I see leaving the restroom without washing their hands. Their hygiene is a much more of a public concern than their genitalia.
I think that "if you don't cut of your dick, then you're not trans, so STFU and stop bothering everybody else" seems like the perfect place to lock a thread concerning the the thread about the firing of a man by a private company because he said many gakky things about many different topics covering many different groups of people.
I don't see the problem with the way things worked before. We have "Mens" and "Womens" bathrooms. There's nothing stopping people from walking into whichever one they choose to enter. All the things that I wouldn't want another person in a public restroom with me to be doing (transgender or otherwise) are already illegal so all the legal protectionswe need have been in effect for a long time.
The problem I have is that they are forcing legislative change. In some places they have been offered gender neutral bathrooms and have refused this saying that is unfairly segregating them. A Transgender Female is free to use the men's bathroom or the gender neutral bathroom, but no. They HAVE to use the female bathroom. That's just too fishy for me.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
curran12 wrote: I think the "get your parts changed" sums up beautifully how completely ignorant you are of the subject. I think we can close this thread now.
Give me a break. I know the issues, I just don't agree with them. Or am I not allowed? Thanks for insulting me though. Appreciate it.
And you've just demonstrated the mindset behind some people and why discussion is virtually impossible. "OH NO! Someone doesn't agree with me or my views. Shut it down, NOW. And btw, you're ignorant, too!"
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2016/04/22 16:44:04
Mdlbuildr wrote: A Transgender Female is free to use the men's bathroom or the gender neutral bathroom, but no. They HAVE to use the female bathroom. That's just too fishy for me.
Seriously... Have you not looked at ANY of the photos being posted to this thread? Others have asked you point blank, based on those photos, would you want that person coming out of the restroom of their biological sex?? How much worse for people will things be if you see a "woman" leaving the mens restrom or see a "man" leaving the women's room?
If you have a daughter and see a dude coming out of the restroom that isn't a janitor or employee who was just cleaning the place, you're probably gonna say some gak to that person... And I can see that it would be a rather heated discussion.
edited for quote block corrections
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/04/22 16:43:10
I don't see the problem with the way things worked before. We have "Mens" and "Womens" bathrooms. There's nothing stopping people from walking into whichever one they choose to enter. All the things that I wouldn't want another person in a public restroom with me to be doing (transgender or otherwise) are already illegal so all the legal protectionswe need have been in effect for a long time.
The problem I have is that they are forcing legislative change. In some places they have been offered gender neutral bathrooms and have refused this saying that is unfairly segregating them. A Transgender Female is free to use the men's bathroom or the gender neutral bathroom, but no. They HAVE to use the female bathroom. That's just too fishy for me.
If somebody identifies as a woman that strongly than I really don't anticipate that person doing anything inappropriate in the women's bathroom. I don't creating additional gender neutral bathrooms is always feasible and is therefore a dangerous precedent to set. Having "Mens" and "Womens" bathrooms should qualify as a reasonable accomodation for everyone.
My only personal exception to that stance would be K-12 public schools. In those instances I think additional gender neutral bathrooms make sense. I don't think it's a good idea to force children to make a definitive choice about gender when they're young and the medical community supports that so third bathrooms make sense instead of forcing difficult situations on children.
My only personal exception to that stance would be K-12 public schools. In those instances I think additional gender neutral bathrooms make sense. I don't think it's a good idea to force children to make a definitive choice about gender when they're young and the medical community supports that so third bathrooms make sense instead of forcing difficult situations on children.
Which happened in a High School in the USA, were a Transgender Female insisted on using the Female Locker Room to change. He was offered a gender neutral place to change and shower and refused. It caused a national uproar. Sorry, but no.
My only personal exception to that stance would be K-12 public schools. In those instances I think additional gender neutral bathrooms make sense. I don't think it's a good idea to force children to make a definitive choice about gender when they're young and the medical community supports that so third bathrooms make sense instead of forcing difficult situations on children.
My daughter's school has boys/girls and "gender neutral" restrooms. The gender neutral rooms are all labeled "staff only" but are generally for adults regardless of their status. If I were visiting the school during normal hours and had to use a restroom, I would have to ask to have one of the staff rooms unlocked.
I agree that it makes sense in schools because it largely removes some potential liabilities... That and adults should be able to go without having to first clean seats off (as younger kids have notoriously piss poor aim)
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/04/22 17:00:06
My only personal exception to that stance would be K-12 public schools. In those instances I think additional gender neutral bathrooms make sense. I don't think it's a good idea to force children to make a definitive choice about gender when they're young and the medical community supports that so third bathrooms make sense instead of forcing difficult situations on children.
Which happened in a High School in the USA, were a Transgender Female insisted on using the Female Locker Room to change. He was offered a gender neutral place to change and shower and refused. It caused a national uproar. Sorry, but no.
That's an instance where courts need to make smart rulings consistent with the definition of reasonable accomodation and the expert advice of pediatricians and the medical community. Unfortunately courts don't always make the best rulings.
That's an instance where courts need to make smart rulings consistent with the definition of reasonable accomodation and the expert advice of pediatricians and the medical community. Unfortunately courts don't always make the best rulings.
Absolutely! The problem comes when the courts, pediatricians and the medical community come to conclusions that the special interest groups disagree with or don't follow their agendas. Then all hell breaks loose. Then everyone's a racist or a bigot.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/04/22 17:05:06
That's an instance where courts need to make smart rulings consistent with the definition of reasonable accomodation and the expert advice of pediatricians and the medical community. Unfortunately courts don't always make the best rulings.
Absolutely! The problem comes when the courts, pediatricians and the medical community come to conclusions that the special interest groups disagree with or don't follow their agendas. Then all hell breaks loose. Then everyone's a racist or a bigot.
Special interest groups =/= socially liberal. Your statement is as opposed to your own point of view as it is for it.
Mdlbuildr wrote: You want to be a man? Get your parts changed. You want to be a woman? Get your parts changed.
So rather than changing what you can about you (gender reassignment) you expect everyone else to change to accommodate you. This isn't about accommodating a disability or special needs, either.
You're getting really butthurt about someone calling you ignorant, but you're espousing viewpoints that are - and I'm not saying this as a perjorative - ignorant. You don't seem to know what you are talking about.
For one, sex reassignment surgery is very expensive. One of my friends is transitioning, and she is looking at $6,000 for minor surgeries that do not include a full sex reassignment. A full sex reassignment is minimum $12 grand, and probably more like $20,000 all in, not counting hormones and other medication costs. Almost none of this is ever covered by insurance, because it's considered cosmetic.
It is almost never enforced in big cities, though. Heck, I've seen plenty of people engaging in actual penetration at NYE parties in SF (aka the Straight Pride Untl I'm Tipsy Parade). Heterosexuals perform lascivious acts in public all the time, just about anywhere and rarely face legal consequences. There are times when such behavior is expected and law enforcement looks the other way, just as there are times when it is not tolerated. If a gay man wore a butt flag thong to a little league game, he'd be just as arrested as a straight man in a butt flag thong at a little league game.
You're getting really butthurt about someone calling you ignorant, but you're espousing viewpoints that are - and I'm not saying this as a perjorative - ignorant. You don't seem to know what you are talking about.
For one, sex reassignment surgery is very expensive. One of my friends is transitioning, and she is looking at $6,000 for minor surgeries that do not include a full sex reassignment. A full sex reassignment is minimum $12 grand, and probably more like $20,000 all in, not counting hormones and other medication costs. Almost none of this is ever covered by insurance, because it's considered cosmetic.
I'm in the medical field. I know exactly what I'm talking about. Again, because people disagree doesn't mean I don't know what I'm talking about. I *might* know more about it than most and just have an opinion based on my knowledge that *could* be more educated than most laymen. Maybe. That is unfathomable to some. That an educated opinion may actually be more factual than the one they read about on the internet.
Legislative change is also very expensive. Except everybody bears the brunt of that.
As you pointed out, the DSM does list it. Which means that with the right legislation and political backing the insurance companies may be forced to cover the surgery. Similar to Bariatric surgery which is now covered. I would line up to support this change at every opportunity. This would give those that need it, the freedom to initiate change that they need help with.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/04/22 17:31:07
It is almost never enforced in big cities, though. Heck, I've seen plenty of people engaging in actual penetration at NYE parties in SF (aka the Straight Pride Untl I'm Tipsy Parade). Heterosexuals perform lascivious acts in public all the time, just about anywhere and rarely face legal consequences. There are times when such behavior is expected and law enforcement looks the other way, just as there are times when it is not tolerated. If a gay man wore a butt flag thong to a little league game, he'd be just as arrested as a straight man in a butt flag thong at a little league game.
There is a little event in New Orleans every year that is all about sex and straight people doing their thing.
Edit 1: Feth it.
Edit 2: I'm going to stop letting the same person who ignores post after post explaining why they are wrong while crying "why won't somebody explain this to me, I'm just a simple man who doesn't understand even though I'm totally smarter than everyone, look at my degree" drag thread after thread off-topic. I need to follow my own advice.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/04/22 17:38:12
Leaving the whole transgender thing back in the other thread where it belongs, I believe this guy was rightly fired.
Sorry, but if you're employed by a company promptly figured in the public eye, don't go on Facebook or twitter and spout your opinions.
The same thing happened to a guy who worked on Evolve. He made a comment (which I agreed with) and Turtle Rock Studios said "Hey, we don't want you or that whole mess being associated with us, you're fired." Read about it here.
Nintendo has also done something similar. Again, private corporations have every right to fire employees who they feel don't represent their brand or might cause PR harm to them.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/04/22 17:58:09
curran12 wrote: I think the "get your parts changed" sums up beautifully how completely ignorant you are of the subject. I think we can close this thread now.
Give me a break. I know the issues, I just don't agree with them. Or am I not allowed? Thanks for insulting me though. Appreciate it.
And you've just demonstrated the mindset behind some people and why discussion is virtually impossible. "OH NO! Someone doesn't agree with me or my views. Shut it down, NOW. And btw, you're ignorant, too!"
I think the problem here is that being trans is not an "issue" for you to agree with or not. The facts about gender vs sex are out there for anyone to peruse if they care to.
To clarify: this isn't an issue for debate like PC vs Console, where differing opinions are equally valid based on personal preference and experience.
This is a matter of fact, and the fact is genitals does not equal gender, in the same way that weather does not equal climate. That you seem to miss this point is why I would call you ignorant on this subject.
Ignorant isn't automatically an insult. I know nothing about hunting. I've never been hunting, don't really know any hunters, don't spend any time reading about it. I have an opinion on hunting, but I know it is an ignorant one.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
I guess it comes down to whether the "men's" and "women's" signs are supposed to suggest sex or gender. We need footnotes on our signs. Frankly, the sex vs. gender issue is largely unimportant in the bigger scheme of what is wrong with public restrooms: hygiene. Where are the laws that forbid people to leave the room without washing? Or laws that state: if you sprinkle when you tinkle, be a sweetie and wipe the seatie? That needs codification.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/04/22 18:15:35