Politics 09: Fire Reid and Steele.

[metroid composite]

Dressing like a flamer is not. intrinsic. to. homosexuality.

This is my big beef with the LGBT movement: they define homosexuality as they are, not as it is.  Demanding protections for flashy dressers is no different than harassing an African American who gets good grades for not being black enough.

I'm not sure about flamers, but certainly butch lesbians are recognized in the psychological community as a unique and distinct psychological group.

Similarly, if you take a CAT scan on homosexual men, homosexual women, heterosexual men, and heterosexual women, the brain use patterns in response to a number of non-sexual stimuli (like reading, throwing a ball, etc) is very similar for het-F and hom-M, and also very similar for het-M and hom-F.  A number of coordination differences have also been noted--lesbians can throw a baseball at a target about as accurately as heterosexual males, and considerably more accurately than heterosexual females.  Homosexual males perform much better on language tests than hetero males, and about at the same average as hetero females.

You know what, instead of me typing 10 paragraphs here, just read the powerpoint presentation:

https://rcpt.yousendit.com/674309850/d8aacfef5d0fc8406973092f71a40368
EDIT: first link apparently doesn't work, try this one
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=SS133E50


The summary is that homosexuality is a medical condition with a lot more symptoms than just "want to have sex with the same gender".  (EDIT: hell, it has more implications than just brain differences; there's actually physiological bone differences).

If I wore hotpants to work and got fired I would have no recourse, because they violate the dresscode, for both men and women!  This isn't 'dresscode violation' as code for 'discrimination against transsexuals.'  This is 'dresscode violation' as code for 'you can't wear hotpants in the office no matter what.'  It's a simple matter of professionalism.

Yes, obviously if you have a dresscode that says no hotpants for anybody, it means no hotpants for anybody.

Let me use a different example, then.  I have a friend who wore a small amount of makeup to work.  Said friend was told to go home and take the whole week off.  When my friend returned, the employer had changed the locks to the garage for the first time in 20 years.

Makeup will rarely be against any explicit dress codes for work, and yet it's something I've seen cause very reactionary discrimination.

[Cmdr_King]

Dress code for professionalism isn't about your job performance, it is about so much more than that.  It would be a stupid argument to make any argument regarding it to purely based on job performance.  Most places have a dress code for a reason.  This dress code can also be focused towards gender specifics depending on what the role is.

Sorry, 'job performance' didn't capture everything I meant it to.  Obviously in some jobs the image of the employee is as important as whatever your actual business is.  A sales rep's appearance is their first impression on customers.  Hooters' entire brand is based on attractive servers, so what's the point if you can't see them?  In the earlier courtroom example, a courtroom is meant to be a serious, solomn thing, so overly flamboyant or revealing dress would undermine the whole thing (and, of course, in a way you do have to sell yourself to the jury, if you don't look serious they are less inclined to take you seriously).

But at the same time I'm struggling to see why, say, a cubical worker or secretary has any particular reason to dress above jeans and t-shirt level (unless they wanted to I guess).  "team unity" or "increased productivity" strike me as suspect at best in those scenarios, so.

[superaielman]

Let me use a different example, then.  I have a friend who wore a small amount of makeup to work.  Said friend was told to go home and take the whole week off.  When my friend returned, the employer had changed the locks to the garage for the first time in 20 years.

Makeup will rarely be against any explicit dress codes for work, and yet it's something I've seen cause very reactionary discrimination.

Was this person a M to F? What's the specific situation here?

And what Grefter said is true enough. Companies can and will set gender specific guidelines for dress codes. Firing or what happened isn't reasonable, but sending them home and talking to them is. Makeup is socially acceptable for women, it isn't for men in the work environment. The manager overreacted but it doesn't seem anything more than that.

[Just Another Day]

Bah. I've always found non-customer service dress-codes a little bit silly. I can get behind business casual ("don't be a schlub") to a degree, but have never seen a clear rationale for requiring cubicle workers to wear formal wear. And obsessively detailed dress-codes are manipulative and controlling, rarely to any real purpose.

I (~straight male) have been given various kinds of shit for discreet makeup in the workplace. Usually understandably (it was mostly back when I worked relatively upscale retail) but still undoubtedly for things that would be totally okay on a woman, and which I personally believe helped me cultivate the sort of attractive, together and slightly exotic look that helped me sell ludicrously expensive scotch. More notably, I was told I was not allowed to wear nail polish when I managed a database at Vancouver General Hospital, which seemed a bit odd given that I was lucky to interact with more than one or two real human beings in a day in that job, all co-workers. I have an ex- who sold men's formal wear in Sears (mid-scale department store in Canada) in Edmonton (least socially conservative city in Alberta, the most socially conservative province in Canada). He played an ongoing game of chicken with the management, daring them to tell them why they thought his flamboyant pink ties were workplace inappropriate, or why they wanted him to wear their standard issue Christmas tie, rather than their standard issue Christmas scarf.

But mostly he and to a lesser extent I are just shit disturbers. For a person struggling through the various hoops transgendered people need to jump through, inflexible gender specific dress codes can be enormously problematic; it's hard to get doctor mandated real life experience as your desired gender if you'll be fired for dressing as such. And it's amazing how much discrimination can hide behind legalistic enforcement of the rules.

[superaielman]

Bah. I've always found non-customer service dress-codes a little bit silly. I can get behind business casual ("don't be a schlub") to a degree, but have never seen a clear rationale for requiring cubicle workers to wear formal wear. And obsessively detailed dress-codes are manipulative and controlling, rarely to any real purpose.

I (~straight male) have been given various kinds of shit for discreet makeup in the workplace. Usually understandably (it was mostly back when I worked relatively upscale retail) but still undoubtedly for things that would be totally okay on a woman, and which I personally believe helped me cultivate the sort of attractive, together and slightly exotic look that helped me sell ludicrously expensive scotch. More notably, I was told I was not allowed to wear nail polish when I managed a database at Vancouver General Hospital, which seemed a bit odd given that I was lucky to interact with more than one or two real human beings in a day in that job, all co-workers. I have an ex- who sold men's formal wear in Sears (mid-scale department store in Canada) in Edmonton (least socially conservative city in Alberta, the most socially conservative province in Canada). He played an ongoing game of chicken with the management, daring them to tell them why they thought his flamboyant pink ties were workplace inappropriate, or why they wanted him to wear their standard issue Christmas tie, rather than their standard issue Christmas scarf.

But mostly he and to a lesser extent I are just shit disturbers. For a person struggling through the various hoops transgendered people need to jump through, inflexible gender specific dress codes can be enormously problematic; it's hard to get legally mandated real life experience as your desired gender if you'll be fired for dressing as such. And it's amazing how much discrimination can hide behind legalistic enforcement of the rules.

My first response to this was 'too goddamned bad'. That is harsh, but..

Businesses base dress codes on what's socially acceptable. While I understand intellectually the objections here for TGs, companies have to protect their image and bottom line first. If a dress code in a particular job is that bad, you need to either talk to your boss, or change your job.

TG's are definitely a gray area and makes it far tougher to objectively judge, but again, when push comes to shove I'd likely support the company's right to mandate what it considers to be an acceptable dress code.

[metroid composite]

Makeup is socially acceptable for women, it isn't for men in the work environment.

And?  At one point it wasn't socially acceptable for women to wear pants.  Never mind LGBT rights--fundamentally these kind of restrictions are just sexist.


When it comes down to it, the number of tomboys and number of umm...metrosexuals easily outnumbers the entire LGBT community (if the above powerpoint is to be believed, they're basically milder manifestations of the same medical condition).  One of my sisters is a bit of a tomboy, and used to do things like shave her head.  She stopped--not because she really wanted to, but because she didn't want to deal with the resulting social pressure anymore.

On the one hand, how do we change social norms?  By gently pushing on boundaries in ways like this.  On the other hand, if my sister would prefer not to deal with social pressure, that's fine, and that's her choice.  There are other people around to be "shit disturbers" (like Just Another Day).  What doesn't sit well with me is being legally able to fire someone (and thus hold a great deal of economic power over them) due to fundamentally harmless actions that people really shouldn't be getting upset over.


Huh, weird, I guess this is turning into a criticism of the gender binary (the gender binary being "men can't do ___", "women can't do ___" stuff).  There's people who advocate eliminating the binary completely.  I'm typically not to fussed about it, I guess because in retrospect I slot quite comfortably into the binary myself >_>

companies have to protect their image and bottom line first.

So...you'd be okay with a company 50 years ago refusing to hire a black person because they need to keep their image up?

I mean, retail is murky.  Presumably Hooters can refuse to hire someone based on all kinds of stuff that would not be legally acceptable reasons for discrimination in other jobs.  But mechanics shops?  Government run hospital databases?  Bullshit, I hold no sympathy for the business there.

[superaielman]

And?  At one point it wasn't socially acceptable for women to wear pants.  Never mind LGBT rights--fundamentally these kind of restrictions are just sexist.

When it comes down to it, the number of tomboys and number of umm...metrosexuals easily outnumbers the entire LGBT community (if the above powerpoint is to be believed, they're basically milder manifestations of the same medical condition).  One of my sisters is a bit of a tomboy, and used to do things like shave her head.  She stopped--not because she really wanted to, but because she didn't want to deal with the resulting social pressure anymore.

Argue against the norms all you want. It's still a companies's choice and right to assign a dress code that won't offend customers and is professional enough to meet their expectations.  You or any person as an individual has to make compromises within whatever job you work. Makeup on men or dresses on men is not socially acceptable at this time and is going to get strongly negative feedback in most job settings as a result.

On the one hand, how do we change social norms?  By gently pushing on boundaries in ways like this.  On the other hand, if my sister would prefer not to deal with social pressure, that's fine, and that's her choice.  There are other people around to be "shit disturbers" (like Just Another Day).  What doesn't sit well with me is being legally able to fire someone (and thus hold a great deal of economic power over them) due to fundamentally harmless actions that people really shouldn't be getting upset over.

You can try to push against it, sure. But when push comes to shove and if a boss/company says 'no, this is against our dress code, stop doing this or you'll be terminated' it is your choice to keep pushing it or not to push it. Dress codes are part of the package of working.

So...you'd be okay with a company refusing to hire a black person because they need to keep their image up?

Oh, this is complete horseshit. You can change what you wear. Everyone can meet this standard fairly. You can't change the color of your skin.

I mean, retail is murky.  Presumably Hooters can refuse to hire someone based on all kinds of stuff that would not be legally acceptable reasons for discrimination in other jobs.  But mechanics shops?  Government run hospital databases?  Bullshit, I hold no sympathy for the business.

Retail does things like: Mandate piercings, bans beards for non religious reasons, and other things. They (rightly) say that someone who has unkept facial hair or piercings will have a negative impact on businsess. More than any other businsess, they should have more control over a dress code because it can make a huge bottom like difference.

For other companies, they have the right. Should they be exercising it in a harsh way and be sympathetic towards legitimate TG cases? Sure. It's still their choice to be dicks and stick to something rigidly if they choose to do that. Freedom of dress is not a right at jobs.

[metroid composite]

So...you'd be okay with a company refusing to hire a black person because they need to keep their image up?

Oh, this is complete horseshit. You can change what you wear. Everyone can meet this standard fairly. You can't change the color of your skin.

Okay, that's fair.  Let's modify that example then.  Let's say the company says "you can work here, but you have to use white facepaint".  Or let's say a car company in the 50s says to a woman "you can work here, but only if you cut your hair short and wear baggy shirts to hide your breasts--we don't want our customers thinking a woman is working on their car--it would cause a loss in confidence."


Totally doable, the only question would be comfort level and feeling degraded.  But then, there are also people who would be more comfortable not using heteronormative gender presentation, and certainly feel degraded to be told they can't wear makeup, or can't have short hair.  In short, you're not letting people be themselves.


And as I've said basically every post: yes, retail where you work directly with customers is a special case.  If the person wearing a Donald Duck costume at Disneyland feels degraded and feels like they're not being themselves--no shit, that's your job.  There's plenty of jobs that don't work with customers where you shouldn't have to put up with that kind of crap, though, particularly when it's inequitable (only some of your employees feel like they're pulling a Disneyland act).

[Grefter]

Yeah that is a kind of weak strawman met, skin colour being something you can't change (well easilly I guess...).  How you dress is entirely up to the person (unless say all your other clothes were burned or something and then well I would say you have other issues to deal with).  You may not like what you wear, but it is a choice.  Edit - Typed while you were posting of course Met >_>

What it really comes down to is that this isn't about not being able to wear the clothes you want (fucking Business clothes are not something anyone ever wants to wear, even people with expensive taste in clothing and go around wearing pants and proper shirts casually, you know, have them in a casual style), there is a business standard and it is set by social norms, if you don't want to meet those standards (regardless of gender, sex or sexual preference) then that is part of your choice to work at that workplace or not.  If you suddenly realise that you are homosexual and choose to express it flamboyantly (Although in this case I would expect the originally expressed personality to be fairly extroverted from the start) well then your entire fucking LIFE situation changed (quite likely entirely unfairly), you should expect it to come up with your job situation as well.  You may find that the job no longer suits you or whatever.

Edit 2 - Just to be clear the following isn't about gender specific stuff anymore, this is general work clothes blabber.

Now I know you haven't had that problem but there is a couple of things at play there.  A) Shaba apparently totally fucking owns.  B) You really technically eased into it >_>  C) You don't have that kind of dress code.  Most workplaces with dress code aren't going to be anywhere nearly as lax with this kind of thing.

For those that see no reason for dress code whatsoever for the cubical worker?  You like have no idea of management issues in the corporate space.  At a base line it helps with team building, which I know everyone thinks is airy fairy totally pointless bullshit (most exercises to do it are, the environment does a far better job for you).  There is OH&S things that are covered there (closed toe shoes).  It avoids "That shirt is offensive!" "It is a picture of Mother fucking Teresa you slag!" stuff.  It gets people all in some kind of uniform style and consistency.  You have to remember here it isn't in place to invade your personal space and control your fucking life.  This is a technique to try and get 30, 40, 50 people on a floor, probably even more working together even remotely well.  This is like herding fucking cats, you don't need to introduce more fucking drama about people's clothes into it or people forming different groups just by the way people dress.  Normally when you throw a 50 year old and a 22 year old in the same room they have fucking nothing in common.  Throw them in the same dress and BAM something in common, they see they are in the same place doing the same things, they see it, they have visual cues.  They can get along and get through the day.

So yeah, perspective, it is fucking amazing shit ain't it?  When you realise it isn't the company systematically out to get you and rape you, but them just like trying to make your job more overall functional?  It hurts a bit less to put on that shirt and pants.  If you take issue with more professional dress than that then you are either to far up the corporate ladder for your tastes or you need to be finding work with a competitor with slightly less dress restrictions.

[superaielman]

Okay, that's fair.  Let's modify that example then.  Let's say the company says "you can work here, but you have to use white facepaint".  Or let's say a car company in the 50s says to a woman "you can work here, but only if you cut your hair short and wear baggy shirts to hide your breasts--we don't want our customers thinking a woman is working on their car--it would cause a loss in confidence."

Why are they forcing employees to wear facepaint? Is it part of a costume?  Companies can't set specific standards for just one person like that, it won't stand up to HR, let alone court. The latter case wouldn't stand up in court/is stupid, because it's specifically attacking them as a person and not a general policy.

These examples are hard to take seriously because they're out there.

Totally doable, the only question would be comfort level and feeling degraded.  But then, there are also people who would be more comfortable not using heteronormative gender presentation, and certainly feel degraded to be told they can't wear makeup, or can't have short hair.  In short, you're not letting people be themselves.

I'm not comfortable wearing long pants at a job, but if it's a part of the dress code, I have to suck it up and roll with it. You don't have to like the restrictions a company sets here, but as long as the dress code is enforced evenly based on standard rules (Which it isn't in your examples), they are perfectly within their rights to set such rules.

You don't have the right to be yourself at a job, you have to fit within the accepted guidelines for behavior/timeliness/dress. If you don't like it, you can find another job.

[NotMiki]

What Gref said regarding dress codes.  The same exact argument is used to promote and defend school dress codes, too.  To my eye, it makes more sense in an office than a school, but then again I always enjoyed wearing a T-shirt emblazoned with the phrase "FUCK YOU" in high school, so maybe I'm not the right person to ask.  (or maybe I'm the perfect person to ask.  anyway.)

Okay, that's fair.  Let's modify that example then.  Let's say the company says "you can work here, but you have to use white facepaint".  Or let's say a car company in the 50s says to a woman "you can work here, but only if you cut your hair short and wear baggy shirts to hide your breasts--we don't want our customers thinking a woman is working on their car--it would cause a loss in confidence."

Totally doable, the only question would be comfort level and feeling degraded.  But then, there are also people who would be more comfortable not using heteronormative gender presentation, and certainly feel degraded to be told they can't wear makeup, or can't have short hair.  In short, you're not letting people be themselves.

Two initial thoughts, then some real information.  Your whiteface scenario seems obviously illegal in the US.  Your male clothes scenario probably is as well, but the reason is a bit perverse: if it's illegal to impose undue hardship (like the facepaint) on a protected class of individuals, then forcing a woman who would be traditionally accustomed to wearing womens' clothing to wear mens' clothing would be a similar hardship (similar to forcing someone to remove religious effects).

Now, a little light reading:

http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/qanda.html

II. What Discriminatory Practices Are Prohibited by These Laws?

Under Title VII, the ADA, and the ADEA, it is illegal to discriminate in any aspect of employment, including:

    * hiring and firing;
    * compensation, assignment, or classification of employees;
    * transfer, promotion, layoff, or recall;
    * job advertisements;
    * recruitment;
    * testing;
    * use of company facilities;
    * training and apprenticeship programs;
    * fringe benefits;
    * pay, retirement plans, and disability leave; or
    * other terms and conditions of employment.

If you can't discriminate in "other conditions of employment," then forcing one class of employees to dress in ways that impose an extra burden on them for no legitimate purpose is pretty clearly illegal.

That said, of course, this only applies to race, color, religion, sex, and national origin.  But if you look at what's in that law, expansion to include sexual orientation and transgender status, I think you could fairly say the problems you're bringing up would be solved.

EDIT: It seems pretty clear to me, anyway, that if those two classifications were included, transgender individuals' needs would be accommodated and businesses would also be able to enforce reasonable dresscodes.

Also, mc, I couldn't download that powerpoint (and I'd like to because this still seems to leave open the question of whether lesbians can get away with wearing pants, and it seems like that might shed some light on the situation).  could you relink it?

EDIT 2:  Man, fuck you guys.  It's my first break from law school and here you're making me look up the Federal EEO laws.

EDIT 3: And I use 'guys' in the most gender-neutral way possible.

[metroid composite]

These examples are hard to take seriously because they're out there.

Yes, that was somewhat intentional.  The problem with personal identification issues is that the default reaction is "I never wanted to cut my hair short, so WTF are these women complaining about."  Or "I never wanted to wear makeup, so I don't understand how the hell it could be important to a guy."  This is because most people don't have identification issues, so find it very difficult to relate.  The goal of those examples was to convey an emotion, not to set legal precedence.


Anyhow, will probably write more detailed stuff later.  Mostly wanted to post an upload link to the powerpoint since Super said the first one no longer works.

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=SS133E50

[superaielman]

Yes, that was somewhat intentional.  The problem with personal identification issues is that the default reaction is "I never wanted to cut my hair short, so WTF are these women complaining about."  Or "I never wanted to wear makeup, so I don't understand how the hell it could be important to a guy."  This is because most people don't have identification issues, so find it very difficult to relate.  The goal of those examples was to convey an emotion, not to set legal precedence.

I get the emotional aspect of what you're takling about. Those were clear examples of just one person being singled out unfairly. Dress codes are universal. I understand wearing makeup could/is important to a guy, but the dress code is part of what goes with a job. Deal with it one way or the other or leave, same as anyone else who has a serious problem with what they are forced to wear on the job.


Miki- Schools aren't a professional setting, jobs are. That seems like the biggest difference. (I also may be strongly biased by hating the idea of school uniforms though.)

[metroid composite]

Those were clear examples of just one person being singled out unfairly. Dress codes are universal.

But gender-specific dress codes are not universal dress codes, that's kinda the point.

I mean, in the case of the contrived auto-shop example, maybe they type up a document saying "the dress code for women requires short hair (no more than 1 inch) and baggy shirts (sufficient to hide breasts)."  That's a dress code.  The only non-universal part of that dress code is "this is the dress code for women".

The point, and why this wouldn't be allowed, is that this situation would make a lot of women very uncomfortable, on a much deeper level than "I find shorts more comfy than pants".  Basically a strong feeling of "I do not belong here.  I am unwelcome unless I hide who I am."  Hell, consider that Olympic female athletes don't shave off their hair, even though on-paper it would make them more aerodynamic--in practice the psychological impact would hurt their athletic performance more than aerodynamics.  But approaching this from the other direction, the dress code in many real-world office situations would make a butch lesbian woman feel similarly uncomfortable.  (For instance, my other sister, the government worker, felt significant pressure to wear make-up at work.  She wouldn't have normally, and used to not wear make-up; now wears it daily.  Granted, she's just lazy, not butch, so this was very much a non-issue for her specifically).

[Just Another Day]

The point, and why this wouldn't be allowed, is that this situation would make a lot of women very uncomfortable, on a much deeper level than "I find shorts more comfy than pants".  Basically a strong feeling of "I do not belong here.  I am unwelcome unless I hide who I am."  Hell, consider that Olympic female athletes don't shave off their hair, even though on-paper it would make them more aerodynamic--in practice the psychological impact would hurt their athletic performance more than aerodynamics.  But approaching this from the other direction, the dress code in many real-world office situations would make a butch lesbian woman feel similarly uncomfortable.  (For instance, my other sister, the government worker, felt significant pressure to wear make-up at work.  She wouldn't have normally, and used to not wear make-up; now wears it daily.  Granted, she's just lazy, not butch, so this was very much a non-issue for her specifically).

Don't trivialize that last point. Pressure on women to wear make-up in the workplace is extremely common, extremely gendered (it never applies to men) and incurs both time and monetary costs. So whether the objections lie in your sister's laziness or a butch lesbian's discomfort, it is a requirement (official or not) being made of women that is not being made of their male co-workers. And that's simply unfair.

[superaielman]

But gender-specific dress codes are not universal dress codes, that's kinda the point.

Reasonable gender based dress codes are standard and are perfectly fine lines for companies to draw in the sand. A woman wearing a dress is considered normal, a man wearing one isn't. Go bitch at society at large if you don't consider these fair standards, it doesn't change at all the basic point that companies are well within their rights to make differences based on gender and what is socially considered acceptable as far as appearances go.

I mean, in the case of the contrived auto-shop example, maybe they type up a document saying "the dress code for women requires short hair (no more than 1 inch) and baggy shirts (sufficient to hide breasts)."  That's a dress code.  The only non-universal part of that dress code is "this is the dress code for women".

Do you have any actual valid examples? Baggy clothes very clearly don't fit this, cutting your hair a certain way doesn't fit either. (Though keeping it relatively neat/clean/respectable does). You can't say 'wear baggy clothes or wear tight' clothes. Give me an actual reasonable example instead of strawwommaning.

The point, and why this wouldn't be allowed, is that this situation would make a lot of women very uncomfortable, on a much deeper level than "I find shorts more comfy than pants".  Basically a strong feeling of "I do not belong here.  I am unwelcome unless I hide who I am."  Hell, consider that Olympic female athletes don't shave off their hair, even though on-paper it would make them more aerodynamic--in practice the psychological impact would hurt their athletic performance more than aerodynamics.  But approaching this from the other direction, the dress code in many real-world office situations would make a butch lesbian woman feel similarly uncomfortable.  (For instance, my other sister, the government worker, felt significant pressure to wear make-up at work.  She wouldn't have normally, and used to not wear make-up; now wears it daily.  Granted, she's just lazy, not butch, so this was very much a non-issue for her specifically).

Discomfort with formal wear does not mean you get a pass on it in the job setting. DOn't like dresses? Wear a pant suit or something else that is considered passable for the job. Again, if you can't handle the dress code for a job for whatever reason you seriously should consider another field. Being a butch lesbian doesn't accept you from that. You aren't required to wear makeup for most jobs. Societial pressure there sucks, but it isn't too relevant.

I really do understand the discomfort, I feel that whenever I go swimming in a public pool and have to go shirtless. (I've got scars from my shoulders down). That doesn't mean my relative discomfort is enough to change the rules, nor should it be. It'd be the same if I worked as a lifeguard at a pool.

Don't trivialize that last point. Pressure on women to wear make-up in the workplace is extremely common, extremely gendered (it never applies to men) and incurs both time and monetary costs. So whether the objections lie in your sister's laziness or a butch lesbian's discomfort, it is a requirement (official or not) being made of women that is not being made of their male co-workers. And that's simply unfair.

No one ever said what is considered 'normal society's standards are 100% fair. We're probably always going to have different things that are acceptable, both in dress and behavior, for men and women.

[Cmdr_King]

Not feeling ambitious enough to keep up with Grefter, but do want to remark on super's line of thought.

Societal standards are all well and good.  Fair or not, they exist and have to be dealt with.  Easy to understand.
But what we should be asking ourselves is why employers should enforce them once a point is reached at which it's clear society standards are on the cusp of upheaval.  That is to say, this entire discussion is underlined by the general idea that current societal standards actively exclude LGTB individuals.  While, yes, society is slowly adapting as the previous generations die off/become less active, it strikes me as backasswards that employers be the last to adapt to a changing society.  Indeed, the conduct people are held to at work are a large part of what defines societal standards, so if significant, needed change is to be made, it's best if they are early adopters.

As noted previously, obvious exceptions (customer service/retail) exist, and there's potential for backlash during the transition, but in the long term a short, sharp period of transition strikes me as much healthier and better for society as a whole than dragging their feet and fighting against change.

[metroid composite]

Few things I thought about on the way home...

Should they be exercising it in a harsh way and be sympathetic towards legitimate TG cases? Sure.

I suspect that's not actually what you meant.  The term "Transgender" abbreviated "TG" currently means "anyone who acts or presents themselves in a way atypical of their birth gender (or wants to do so but feels pressured by social stigma)."  This includes Butch Lesbians, Drag Queens, saturday night crossdressers and so on.  Historically  (like 1991) the term Transgender represented something much more specific--originally represented a group of...well Luddites who lived as the gender of choice, but avoided all forms of hormones and surgery.

From your context, I'm guessing neither of these definitions is the one you meant.

Retail does things like: Mandate piercings, bans beards for non religious reasons, and other things.

The religion comment got me thinking...having dress code allowances for religion and not for gender abnormality seems excessively odd the more I think about it....

1. First of all, what's stopping someone from founding a "church of crossdressing"?  Religious clothing laws hypothetically opens up almost anything.  Conversely trans clothing laws have a narrow well-defined effect.
2. Everyone has a gender identity (usually cisgendered).  Many people don't have a religion.
3. People can and do change religion.  People can't change their gender identity.

Not that Religion shouldn't be protected--anti religious persecution sentiment practically founded America.  Just...they're both fundamentally psychological health and lifestyle health, and one seems much narrower and better-documented by science; why is that the one not protected?

Don't trivialize that last point. Pressure on women to wear make-up in the workplace is extremely common, extremely gendered (it never applies to men) and incurs both time and monetary costs. So whether the objections lie in your sister's laziness or a butch lesbian's discomfort, it is a requirement (official or not) being made of women that is not being made of their male co-workers. And that's simply unfair.

Fair enough, but they still aren't fully comparable.

"I don't want to spend all that time and money, although once done I do look better and feel better about my appearance."
vs
"I don't want to spend all that time and money, and this feels like a cage that is crushing my soul."

[superaielman]

But what we should be asking ourselves is why employers should enforce them once a point is reached at which it's clear society standards are on the cusp of upheaval.  That is to say, this entire discussion is underlined by the general idea that current societal standards actively exclude LGTB individuals.  While, yes, society is slowly adapting as the previous generations die off/become less active, it strikes me as backasswards that employers be the last to adapt to a changing society.  Indeed, the conduct people are held to at work are a large part of what defines societal standards, so if significant, needed change is to be made, it's best if they are early adopters.

Social revolution isn't the point of a businsess, it's to make money and provide a service. Whatever fits this best, in terms of dress code and being reasonable, is what they should go with. I can't say I expect to see men wearing makeup or putting on skirts to be socially acceptable any time soon. (TG/whatever *SMACK to MC ahead of time*) may end up a bit different, but it won't impact what is 'normal'.)

[Cmdr_King]

Yes, businesses are under no formal obligation to be good citizens.  However, my point can easily be "anticipating changes in societal standards is more conducive to long term profit and employee satisfaction, so businesses being at the rearguard is stupid and counter-productive".  In the short term you suffer... temporary adjustment woes (short lived weariness and resentment as people learn that yes, this is something they have to live with).

Put another way, businesses taking the lead in adapting to societal change speeds along such changes into a new equilibrium, which in turn makes for a better business environment.

[metroid composite]

(TG/whatever *SMACK to MC ahead of time*)

Right, right, I should be actually helpful here and explain the various terminology:

Transgender: basically anything gender variant.
Intersex: people with a mixture of...parts (some born that way).
Transexual: people who take hormones (and often also do surgery).
Transman / ftm: Transexuals who start female and end male
Transwoman / mtf: Transexuals who start male and end female
Gender Queer: People who don't fully fall under either gender category psychologically (think bi but for gender identity).
Gender Binary: Society's gender roles ("you are either A or B")--the absolute bane of GQ existence.
Crossdresser: People who don't take hormones or surgery, but dress sometimes going back and forth.  People who identify with this group are often straight.
pre-op: TS who has not gotten genital surgery.
post-op: TS w/ genital surgery.
non-op: TS who has chosen to not get surgery.
Transvestite fetishism: According to the APA...people who crossdress for reasons of sexual stimulation and feel guilty about it.
Drag Queen: The gay equivalent term to cross-dresser, usually associated with performance and lip syncing, almost always done for entertainment or fundraising purposes only.
Butch Lesbian: Lesbians who wear typically male clothing and engage in typically male activities.  Most transmen were butch lesbians at some point in their lives (often for several years).
Flamer: There does seem to be a gay male equivalent to butch lesbian, but it's less well studied (or maybe the studies I've seen have been lesbian-centric).  This group is much less likely than Butch Lesbians to go for hormones/surgery later in life.
Stealth: People who look and sound so convincing that they live for years without anyone realizing they're trans.  Note that hormones and surgery aren't required--take for instance the Jazz perfomer Billy Tipton--discovered anatomically female at his death at age 74.

Social revolution isn't the point of a businsess, it's to make money and provide a service. Whatever fits this best, in terms of dress code and being reasonable, is what they should go with. I can't say I expect to see men wearing makeup or putting on skirts to be socially acceptable any time soon. (TG/whatever *SMACK to MC ahead of time*) may end up a bit different, but it won't impact what is 'normal'.)

Businesses don't make laws.  Governments make laws.

I doubt wearing a turban to work in Oklahoma would be thought highly of by the employer, but the government protects that.

I suspect businesses would be dumping toxic waste into the nearest river if allowed, but government prohibits that.

Fundamentally, businesses will do whatever most selfishly profits them...unless they are legally barred from doing so.  Being an early adopter on LGBT acceptance would put a business at a competitive disadvantage.  If every business was forced to respect LGBT rights by the government, though, suddenly there's no competitive disadvantage.

[Grefter]

"I don't want to spend all that time and money, although once done I do look better and feel better about my appearance."
vs
"I don't want to spend all that time and money, and this feels like a cage that is crushing my soul."

And this is the point where you would be looking for a new job to help improve your mental health and your lifestyle.  At that point it is above clothing and image and that means the workplace isn't fit for your presence.  Everyone is better than the workplace that makes them feel like that.

[Taishyr]

And this is the point where you would be looking for a new job to help improve your mental health and your lifestyle.  At that point it is above clothing and image and that means the workplace isn't fit for your presence.  Everyone is better than the workplace that makes them feel like that.

Except that's not always an option if you're trying to make ends meet just to survive. Layers in Hell and all.

Little else to say except that in general I agree with MC on this.

[metroid composite]

Not to mention...what if ALL the jobs are like that?

For example, take sexual discrimination in the workplace.  If every single workplace pays women less and gives them fewer promotions, and has employees who don't respect female management, then "change your workplace" just plain doesn't get you the respect and pay you deserve.  (Ironically enough, "change your gender" seems to work just fine based on the transmen I know >_>).

[superaielman]

The religion comment got me thinking...having dress code allowances for religion and not for gender abnormality seems excessively odd the more I think about it....

1. First of all, what's stopping someone from founding a "church of crossdressing"?  Religious clothing laws hypothetically opens up almost anything.  Conversely trans clothing laws have a narrow well-defined effect.
2. Everyone has a gender identity (usually cisgendered).  Many people don't have a religion.
3. People can and do change religion.  People can't change their gender identity.

Not that Religion shouldn't be protected--anti religious persecution sentiment practically founded America.  Just...they're both fundamentally psychological health and lifestyle health, and one seems much narrower and better-documented by science; why is that the one not protected?

Religious accomdations for whatever is considered an established religion. The cult Bob from down the street sets up very clearly doesn't quality for this, whereas a mainstream religion does.  More specifically, religious clothing/etc has clear limiations- you can't say wear a burka and work as a waitress for example. A good example of that is muslims fasting- pilots take alternate fasting days so they are able to to their jobs.

Wearing the clothing you want is not a protected right outside of of certain religious exceptions. And as listed above, you still have to be compliant with the dress code of a company even within those guidelines. If you can't meet those (Say your religion requires you to grow a long, unkept beard and you work in a job where it has a negative impact), you need to find another job. Grefter's explained the why behind this and so I have I.

Businesses don't make laws.  Governments make laws.

I doubt wearing a turban to work in Oklahoma would be thought highly of by the employer, but the government protects that.

I suspect businesses would be dumping toxic waste into the nearest river if allowed, but government prohibits that.

Fundamentally, businesses will do whatever most selfishly profits them...unless they are legally barred from doing so.  Being an early adopter on LGBT acceptance would put a business at a competitive disadvantage.  If every business was forced to respect LGBT rights by the government, though, suddenly there's no competitive disadvantage.

Dress codes are any area where companies are allowed to set guidelines. Very obviously, saying 'we won't hire muslims/jews/gays/whatever' is not, and neither is dumping waste.

You can be whatever you want when you're not working. But you don't have freedom of religion at work or freedom of speech, among other things. Employeers can and will discriminate legally and well within reason if you can't physically or mentally meet the standards they set. A dress code is the same thing. Sexuality, race, gender and other things you can't alter are protected legally. What you wear isn't.

Not to mention...what if ALL the jobs are like that?

For example, take sexual discrimination in the workplace.  If every single workplace pays women less and gives them fewer promotions, and has employees who don't respect female management, then "change your workplace" just plain doesn't get you the respect and pay you deserve.  (Ironically enough, "change your gender" seems to work just fine based on the transmen I know >_>).

Hi, I'm Mr. Strawman. I've had a busy few days in this thread. Could you please stop dragging me here every other post? I want a break since the healthcare debate is keeping me busy.

You're arguing something completely different now. No one approves of or considers denying promotions based on gender to be fair at all. A company would and could get in major trouble for denying an employee a raise/promotion because of sex/gender/whatever. Making them abide by the same guidelines that everyone else does for clothing is not specifically biased, it is applying the same standard to everyone.