A week of LGBTQ acceptance education in a middle school. Really?

Cotton · Apr 3, 2016

townsend said:
if someone's trans it's absolutely harder for them to get ahead. A big part of what people call "white privelege" is actually privilege of assimilation. If a guy's named Stewart Johnson, people will be more likely to hire them than if they're named Ladarius Damarius. If you show up to a job interview dressed like a women, with a man's physical body, then people will be put off by you, and likely go with someone that makes them less uncomfortable. We're only 5 years removed from people getting kicked out of the military for being gay. So it's not just about cakes.

As well they should be. Who wants to have that in their office environment? And, they shouldn't have to if they are the ones doing the hiring.

Cowboysrock55 · Apr 3, 2016

Iamtdg said:
As well they should be. Who wants to have that in their office environment? And, they shouldn't have to if they are the ones doing the hiring.

So if I walk into a job interview in shorts and a tank top that's not good and I won't be hired. But if I go in with a dress and high heels they should be tolerant and look past it? That's stupid, appearance matters when it comes to hiring someone. Has nothing to do with tolerance.

Cotton · Apr 3, 2016

Cowboysrock55 said:
So if I walk into a job interview in shorts and a tank top that's not good and I won't be hired. But if I go in with a dress and high heels they should be tolerant and look past it? That's stupid, appearance matters when it comes to hiring someone. Has nothing to do with tolerance.

Exactly.

townsend · Apr 3, 2016

Cowboysrock55 said:
So if I walk into a job interview in shorts and a tank top that's not good and I won't be hired. But if I go in with a dress and high heels they should be tolerant and look past it? That's stupid, appearance matters when it comes to hiring someone. Has nothing to do with tolerance.

Gender identity and dressing sloppy aren't the same thing. If you had attended some kind of education on that, maybe you could distinguish.

If someone has burns, or scars, is overweight, or missing limbs, they may also be off putting to you. But discriminating against them still makes you a shitty person.

L.T. Fan · Apr 3, 2016

townsend said:
I'm not saying whites are actively suppressing others. Just that the ghost of white supremacy lives on in conventions that were minted when it was a more universal outlook. There are a lot of things that still happen because it's the way it's always been done. If segregation is still kind of enforced, it doesn't matter if it's malicious or not, we're still enacting the wishes of white supremacists.

I really don't agree with all of what you are saying here. It's not like equality was suddenly discovered with your generation. Obviously the founding fathers promoted this position even though some didn't practice it. Every generation since has had struggles of how to create equality and its issues. The idea of white supremacy was believed and espoused by a minor segment of the population. It wasn't the majority belief by a long shot. Even today there are factions that continue to try to promulgate the idea but by in large the solid core beliefs and practices of the majority of the population holds the view that equality is for everyone. White supremacy isn't a, belief or position for the majority of the white population. I didn't come to this conclusion from some academics research paper, I have been around long enough to know from experience how most of those I know feel. Granted the narrow bigoted few are still around but I venture to say that segment exists in all races.

Smitty · Apr 3, 2016

Cowboysrock55 said:
So if I walk into a job interview in shorts and a tank top that's not good and I won't be hired. But if I go in with a dress and high heels they should be tolerant and look past it? That's stupid, appearance matters when it comes to hiring someone. Has nothing to do with tolerance.

Nope. We need to teach young whites that if they don't accept this, they are bigots.

Cowboysrock55 · Apr 3, 2016

townsend said:
If someone has burns, or scars, is overweight, or missing limbs, they may also be off putting to you. But discriminating against them still makes you a shitty person.

Who is the judgmental person now? And dressing appropriate for a job is dressing appropriate for a job. Has nothing to do with gender identity. You can identify as a woman and still dress in pants and a shirt. People born as a woman do this every day. If you choose not to you're not being oppressed, you're trying to be a contrarian for the sake of being a contrarian.

townsend · Apr 3, 2016

L.T. Fan said:
I really don't agree with all of what you are saying here. It's not like equality was suddenly discovered with your generation. Obviously the founding fathers promoted this position even though some didn't practice it. Every generation since has had struggles of how to create equality and its issues. The idea of white supremacy was believed and espoused by a minor segment of the population. It wasn't the majority belief by a long shot. Even today there are factions that continue to try to promulgate the idea but by in large the solid core beliefs and practices of the majority of the population holds the view that equality is for everyone. White supremacy isn't a, belief or position for the majority of the white population. I didn't come to this conclusion from some academics research paper, I have been around long enough to know from experience how most of those I know feel. Granted the narrow bigoted few are still around but I venture to say that segment exists in all races.

White supremacy was a big part of academics. Eugenics and the White Man's Burdon were a big part of accepted mainstream philosophy into the 20th century. At a certain point it became unpopular to talk about. But segregation had all of its roots in white supremacy.

Just a few decades since then, even as the rhetoric has been deemed offensive by the mainstream. The effects of segregation, white flight, the denial of GI Bill benefits to black vets after WW2 have had long term effects that have kept blacks in positions more likely to be impoverished. Since criminal justice preys heavily on the poor, that means they're also more likely to be incarcerated.

townsend · Apr 3, 2016

Cowboysrock55 said:
Who is the judgmental person now? And dressing appropriate for a job is dressing appropriate for a job. Has nothing to do with gender identity. You can identify as a woman and still dress in pants and a shirt. People born as a woman do this every day. If you choose not to you're not being oppressed, you're trying to be a contrarian for the sake of being a contrarian.

So if you were required to wear a pretty pink dress to get a job, you'd be okay with that?

It's not been that long since it was controversial for Laura Petry to were pants on television. I guess it wasn't bigoted back then to dress the way you wanted them too.

Cowboysrock55 · Apr 3, 2016

mschmidt64 said:
Nope. We need to teach young whites that if they don't accept this, they are bigots.

It's like people default to calling something bigotry or racist simply because they don't get their way.

I laugh every time I see someone claim they knew they were the different sex because they played with dolls as a kid or something like that. As though gender is defined by wearing a dress or playing with dolls. Those things might be associated with certain genders but they sure as shit aren't what it means to be male or female.

Cowboysrock55 · Apr 3, 2016

townsend said:
So if you were required to wear a pretty pink dress to get a job, you'd be okay with that?

Do you think anyone would be screaming bigot at that person? They would be celebrated. And no I wouldn't care. Not any more then I wear a suit to work every day even though I hate wearing suits. If you think clothes define your gender then you have no idea what it really means to be a transgender.

L.T. Fan · Apr 3, 2016

townsend said:
White supremacy was a big part of academics. Eugenics and the White Man's Burdon were a big part of accepted mainstream philosophy into the 20th century. At a certain point it became unpopular to talk about. But segregation had all of its roots in white supremacy.

Just a few decades since then, even as the rhetoric has been deemed offensive by the mainstream. The effects of segregation, white flight, the denial of GI Bill benefits to black vets after WW2 have had long term effects that have kept blacks in positions more likely to be impoverished. Since criminal justice preys heavily on the poor, that means they're also more likely to be incarcerated.

I didn't say white supremacy didn't exist. I said it wasn't a majority view of the white population. History books don't write about the common man. The focus on those who stand out via extreme or heroic actions.

townsend · Apr 3, 2016

Cowboysrock55 said:
Do you think anyone would be screaming bigot at that person? They would be celebrated. And no I wouldn't care. Not any more then I wear a suit to work every day even though I hate wearing suits. If you think clothes define your gender then you have no idea what it really means to be a transgender.

I wouldn't say close define gender, but I would say society dictates what is appropriate for each gender to wear. I'm not saying a person should go to an interview underdressed, but if someone is wearing something appropriate for business formal, or business casual etc, but is discriminated against because they're wearing male or female clothing that doesn't suit their biological sex, that is bigotry.

Now we could drill down on this concept, as to whether non trans people should be allowed to dress in skirts etc, since conventions in style are silly anyway, and skirts aren't inherently more female, and ties aren't inherently more male.
Those are fair questions to raise, and we should. Ties are stupid and hurt your eyesight long term.

I used a dress as a placeholder for, styling and presenting oneself as female when male or vise versa. Obviously a Hillary Clinton pants suit might be a more likely outfit to wear to something businesslike.

Cowboysrock55 · Apr 3, 2016

townsend said:
I wouldn't say close define gender, but I would say society dictates what is appropriate for each gender to wear. I'm not saying a person should go to an interview underdressed, but if someone is wearing something appropriate for business formal, or business casual etc, but is discriminated against because they're wearing male or female clothing that doesn't suit their biological sex, that is bigotry.

I find it curious that you're ok being superficial as long as it fits your rules. It's either ok to be superficial or it isn't. It's not ok to pick and chose based on an agenda. And just to make it clear, everyone is superficial. So if that makes someone a prick then everyone is a prick including you.

townsend · Apr 3, 2016

L.T. Fan said:
I didn't say white supremacy didn't exist. I said it wasn't a majority view of the white population. History books don't write about the common man. The focus on those who stand out via extreme or heroic actions.

I'm saying for the greater part of the 20th century it was a mainstream viewpoint. If it wasn't white flight, segregation and so on would have never been a thing. I'll let Strom Thurmond take it from here:

townsend · Apr 3, 2016

Cowboysrock55 said:
I find it curious that you're ok being superficial as long as it fits your rules. It's either ok to be superficial or it isn't. It's not ok to pick and chose based on an agenda. And just to make it clear, everyone is superficial. So if that makes someone a prick then everyone is a prick including you.

Probably true to an extent. I'm not going to say that prejudices definitely wouldn't and haven't affected my behavior. I think "everyone's a prick" might be the most succinct description of the issue with all discrimination. The best someone can do is analyze why they're discriminating. If a fat guy, a handicapped, guy or a trans guy made me uncomfortable, the onus should be on me to figure out why.

If handicapped people, trans people, or overweight people asked for a little more visibility to help combat that discrimination, I think it'd be pretty dickish to act like there's something wrong with that.

BipolarFuk · Apr 3, 2016

L.T. Fan · Apr 3, 2016

townsend said:
I'm saying for the greater part of the 20th century it was a mainstream viewpoint. If it wasn't white flight, segregation and so on would have never been a thing. I'll let Strom Thurmond take it from here:

Not the common man example.

L.T. Fan · Apr 3, 2016

townsend said:
I wouldn't say close define gender, but I would say society dictates what is appropriate for each gender to wear. I'm not saying a person should go to an interview underdressed, but if someone is wearing something appropriate for business formal, or business casual etc, but is discriminated against because they're wearing male or female clothing that doesn't suit their biological sex, that is bigotry.

Now we could drill down on this concept, as to whether non trans people should be allowed to dress in skirts etc, since conventions in style are silly anyway, and skirts aren't inherently more female, and ties aren't inherently more male.
Those are fair questions to raise, and we should. Ties are stupid and hurt your eyesight long term.

I used a dress as a placeholder for, styling and presenting oneself as female when male or vise versa. Obviously a Hillary Clinton pants suit might be a more likely outfit to wear to something businesslike.

How does a person doing the interview and hiring factor how a person dresses or grooms themselves may affect the customer or clientele of the business. If the employee dresses in.such a way as to become a negative influence to the business' s profitability then it seems to me that should take prescience over the rights of an employee to wear what suits them.

townsend · Apr 3, 2016

L.T. Fan said:
How does a person doing the interview and hiring factor how a person dresses or grooms themselves may affect the customer or clientele of the business. If the employee dresses in.such a way as to become a negative influence to the business' s profitability then it seems to me that should take prescience over the rights of an employee to wear what suits them.

That becomes the question doesn't it, if being aesthetically displeasing was the standard by which discrimination is acceptable then disabilities, skin color, or weight should be a concern. Is it okay to not hire a fat person or someone with a colostomy bag because it might affect your business? Maybe if your a Hooters, not necessarily if your an accounting firm.

A week of LGBTQ acceptance education in a middle school. Really?

One-armed Knife Sharpener

Super Moderator

One-armed Knife Sharpener

Banned

I'm Easy If You Are

DCC 4Life

Super Moderator

Banned

Banned

Super Moderator

Super Moderator

I'm Easy If You Are

Banned

Super Moderator

Banned

Banned

Demoted

I'm Easy If You Are

I'm Easy If You Are

Banned