Blame the Jeans
There’s a bill that’s been brought to the forefront recently regarding equal employment opportunities for transexuals and I had the chance to hear a short debate on Hardball on MSNBC.
Some research showed that 70% of the transexuals in San Francisco were unemployed, and the report concluded that it was due to their sexual orientation. The argument being made is that transexuality (including cross-dressing etc.) was an inborn attribute. As such, it was involuntary and should not be used to discriminate transexuals in the issue of employment. The reverse side of the argument is that employment inherently contains some form of discrimination, and at its core transexuality is a choice.
This is such a tricky issue. Where does genetic predisposition end and choice begin? If I argue that I wasn’t born as smart as Einstein, could I then sue NASA for not employing me? It is ironic that the United States, where personal choice is a pillar of society, genes are often used as a scapegoat to disavow the responsibility that comes with freedom of choice.
Is transexuality a choice or a genetic predisposition? I’m no expert in the area and honestly, I don’t know. But a fair yardstick should be used when measuring our ability to “affect our own destinies” and facing up to the consequences of our own actions.
No TrackBacks
TrackBack URL: http://tribolum.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1820
does it matter...if someone wants to be transexual shouldnt they be allowed to? I mean most women are transexuals anyways. The pant has become an acceptable wear for them but historically it is an inherently male clothing. They are allowed to wear them. Why should guys not be afforded the same acceptance? Besides, why should it matter anyways? I think that criterias such as these should not matter for employment anyways, it doesnt matter if it is a genetic predisposition or a choice! Maybe I am just being nieve...but that is my opinion.
That is an interesting observation Ramit - the fact that women already do wear pants. Social norms do change, but not as fast as some of us would like. If someone's transexuality affects his or her ability to function in a company, should that be grounds for not employing the person? Or would that be discrimination?
i'm not sure, by from what i know, some have a choice and some chose to be the opposite gender because "they have more female or male hormones".
But i think employing an individual should be based on one's ability and creativity.
The issue of sexual freedom only applies if the employers were to take the workplace environment into consideration.
You know, we all have personal and private lives. Some combine both and others not so much. Part of the problem, it seems, is that the unemployed transexuals choose not to separate the two... and I don't mean that they shouldn't be publicly transexual, but more that they should approach employment with a certain amount of professionalism. If this doesn't happen, I can *certainly* understand why they wouldn't be hired. It's like if I went into a fine men's clothing store in blue jean shorts, sneakers, a tank top and cowboy hat. I *might* not walk out gainfully employed.
One of the orthopaedic consultants in my hospital was a Royal Surgeon (he did the Queen Mother's hips when she was still alive), who used to be a man, and got a hell lot of flak from the hospitals she was working in during the 'physical transition'. IN the end all that blew over because the fact remains that there IS a reason why she was Royal Surgeon. So right now she's still a pretty revered figure of authority in her specialty, both by fellow colleagues and patients alike.
So what's that about professionalism again?
walker: wtf are you talking about? Transexual guys can look just as good as girls. Their physical appearance is only thought of as odd because of our social norms. And they would dress for the job, as long as they are dressed in the appropriate fomal (semi-formal or whatever) for their job. It seems to me that you say that they dont look right because they are dressing like a female and because they look *different* or in a social sense "ugly" that they should not get the job. I mean do you hire based upon good looks? No (well unless you are a model) that would not be fair. This is the same. Just because they dont look good by most social standards they arent being hired..and thats wrong.
If someone OBVIOUSLY appears to be a man attempting to dress like a woman, then no, I don't believe they're being unfairly discriminated against. If they can pull it off and fool everyone, then more power to them.
And hey, your case about the surgeon is about someone who had a job and made the transition after already proving their worth. It's not someone LOOKING for a new job. That's when that first impression comes into play. You think that wouldn't have mattered when he/she was trying to get into medical school? Well honestly, I can't say... I've never tried. But in many professions, it'd make a big impact. Otherwise, why even have interviews. Someone's qualifications are good enough, they're hired, right? Eh, wrong.