Dear Sir/madam: Sorry..... we don't accept ladyboys

[DM07]

1 minute ago, futsukayoi said:

 

Someones "gender" does make them unsuitable for many jobs.  If your sex is male but you think someone attached the wrong bits and your gender should be female you have some mental health problems (like those who think they are Jesus, Napoleon or a gorilla).  I think that an employer should have the right to decide if they want an employee with mental issues.

 

In fact the situation with the child molester would be exactly the same as they have similar identity/mental issues although obviously if they act on them the results are much more horrific.

 

Oh...boy...this is so hopeless!

[DM07]

7 minutes ago, Get Real said:

we despise, who you are, that's why we don't give you a job! ?????? Where did they say that. They said that they do not employ ladyboys or 2nd type woman.

They can´t be more polite, without lying.

And they do not employ ladyboys, becaaaaaaaause.....?!

Please don't answer, it will be mind numbing, I guess!

[hansnl]

3 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

People have the right to be identified as the gender they know them selves to be. It's not a choice, it's who they are.

 

Companies should not be allowed to discriminate against someone because of who they are.

 

This applies whether they are gay, straight, transgender, male, female.

 

And let's not forget the unacceptability of discrimination based on colour, age, faith...

If an employer wants a "straight" staff member, that is his right.

Although we all think ladyboys, gays, tomboys, whatever, are fully accepted in Thai society, they are not.

I can imagine an employer doesn't want possible tensions between members of staff and will not choose new staff that are not accepted by the others.

Is it right?

No way, but that's how it is.

[Bluespunk]

8 minutes ago, futsukayoi said:

 

Someones "gender" does make them unsuitable for many jobs.  If your sex is male but you think someone attached the wrong bits and your gender should be female you have some mental health problems (like those who think they are Jesus, Napoleon or a gorilla).  I think that an employer should have the right to decide if they want an employee with mental issues.

 

In fact the situation with the child molester would be exactly the same as they have similar identity/mental issues although obviously if they act on them the results are much more horrific.

 

Transgender men and women being who they are, is not a mental issue.

Edited June 19, 2018 by Bluespunk

[Bluespunk]

4 minutes ago, hansnl said:

If an employer wants a "straight" staff member, that is his right.

Although we all think ladyboys, gays, tomboys, whatever, are fully accepted in Thai society, they are not.

I can imagine an employer doesn't want possible tensions between members of staff and will not choose new staff that are not accepted by the others.

Is it right?

No way, but that's how it is.

It's still discrimination.

[Jingthing]

5 minutes ago, hansnl said:

...

Although we all think ladyboys, gays, tomboys, whatever, are fully accepted in Thai society, they are not.
...

No we don't all think that!

[Ron19]

A post against forum rules and an answer to it have been removed.

 

11) You will not post slurs, degrading or overly negative comments directed towards Thailand, specific locations, Thai institutions such as the judicial or law enforcement system, Thai culture, Thai people or any other group on the basis of race, nationality, religion, gender or sexual orientation.

[Jeremy50]

So depressing all this sexist bigotry . How can people be so narrow minded , unaccepting, and hateful about something like a person's sexual orientation in 2018? I really would dread having to meet some of these neanderthals in person. A good reason never to strike up a conversation with the slob in the next seat on the long haul back home, just in case he turns out to be a TV bigot.

[sjaak327]

Of course they know who they are, we all know who we are, it's what they are that is the subject.
 
Katoeys want everyone to pretend, just like they do, that they are women, that they are something that they are not.  They are not women, they are men, and if they cannot fit into a normal society because of their own choice to be abnormal, and their own pretence, that is no one's fault but their own and they should learn to live with it.

Of course they can perfectly function into society. And I for one applaud relevant laws to protect these people from the few narrow minded people who believe anyone not up to their standards cannot function in society. What utter rubbish

Sent from my SM-J730GM using Tapatalk

[timendres]

7 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

They are being who they are and this transgender woman has allegedly been punished for having the courage to be so. 

Being turned down for a job is not being punished. Frankly, it is the company that is punished by limiting their potential talent pool. She should be grateful to not be working with narrow minded, shortsighted people.

[timendres]

9 minutes ago, sjaak327 said:

Of course they can perfectly function into society. And I for one applaud relevant laws to protect these people from the few narrow minded people who believe anyone not up to their standards cannot function in society. What utter rubbish
 

Laws are generally ineffective and typically make matters worse, with some exceptions. What is needed is for good people to stand up and help change the hearts and minds of the people. When the peoples' hearts are right, laws are unnecessary.

[foxboy]

2 hours ago, Just Weird said:

They are actually being diametrically opposed to "who they are" (whatever that means).  They are men, they are not being "courageous" and they are certainly not being "punished".  They are simply suffering the consequences of their own decisions to masquerade as females.

The way I see it.. it's the business owner being 'punished' for making staff choices based on his personal preferences and having the 'courage' to do so ?

[DM07]

4 minutes ago, timendres said:

Laws are generally ineffective and typically make matters worse, with some exceptions. What is needed is for good people to stand up and help change the hearts and minds of the people. When the peoples' hearts are right, laws are unnecessary.

Nice and correct sentiment!

Little question, though: have you read the comments on the last 4,5 pages on this thread...?

[timendres]

43 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

Transgender men and women being who they are, is not a mental issue.

Of course it is a mental issue. Just like wanting to be a pedantic conformist is a mental issue.

The question is discrimination. Saying "I will not hire a ladyboy because I hate them" is discrimination. Saying "I cannot hire a ladyboy because it does not work with my business model" is not.

[DM07]

4 minutes ago, foxboy said:

The way I see it.. it's the business owner being 'punished' for making staff choices based on his personal preferences and having the 'courage' to do so ?

Yeah...like this upstanding citizen in the 'Murica, who was discriminated against and discriminated against his religious believes, and who rightfully refused to bake a cake for some faggots...right?!

 

Oh...I forgot the ?...that indicates that this soooooo funny!

 

[timendres]

2 minutes ago, DM07 said:

Nice and correct sentiment!

Little question, though: have you read the comments on the last 4,5 pages on this thread...?

Of course. Change like this does not happen overnight. And laws, in general, do not expedite it.

[greenchair]

3 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

A: I agree that people are born as who they are. I just don't share your extremely narrow vision of what this means.

 

B: No one is born a criminal. That is what they are, not who.

 

C : A child molester is a criminal scum bag. Not the same thing at all. It is disgusting that you try to link such filth to this story.

 

D : Someones sexual orientation or gender does not make them unsuitable for a job. That is discrimination.

 

E :  What you post does not in any way undermine what I said.

 

 

So you are discriminating against child molesters then. 

Because child molesters live on the fringes of society and their heart of hearts believe they are doing nothing wrong or unusual. That's why they can't be cured. 

Don't they deserve their place in a job of their choosing ?

Smokers, drug addicts, kiddy fiddlers, darth vader fanatics, gays, ladymen, alcoholics , Muslims, Christians, Jews, sadists, all live a different lifestyle. They shouldn't expect everyone else to follow their way. It's just not for everyone. 

[Retiredandhappyhere]

Also your POV on what occupations transgender people should limit themselves REEKS of decrepit bigotry.

All people should feel free to pursue ANY work they can qualify for.

They should not be limited by the ignorance of bigots.

 

Of course they should be free to pursue ANY work they can qualify for, but also the potential employer should be free to politely decline to employ them if he/she wishes, for whatever reason.

[poanoi]

its about the money, i will always buy from the cute girl

when i have a choice, well, depend how long the cue is,

i can put up with a slightly longer cue time cause i like to look at beauty.

if the company has face to face interaction with customers,

they will make more money by hiring cuties judging by my criteria

 

 

 

[Bluespunk]

10 minutes ago, timendres said:

Of course it is a mental issue. Just like wanting to be a pedantic conformist is a mental issue.

The question is discrimination. Saying "I will not hire a ladyboy because I hate them" is discrimination. Saying "I cannot hire a ladyboy because it does not work with my business model" is not.

Disagree with nearly everything you say here.

Edited June 19, 2018 by Bluespunk

[Bluespunk]

21 minutes ago, timendres said:

Being turned down for a job is not being punished. Frankly, it is the company that is punished by limiting their potential talent pool. She should be grateful to not be working with narrow minded, shortsighted people.

She should be treated according to her qualifications for the job, not because of who she is.

[Bluespunk]

9 minutes ago, greenchair said:

So you are discriminating against child molesters then. 

Because child molesters live on the fringes of society and their heart of hearts believe they are doing nothing wrong or unusual. That's why they can't be cured. 

Don't they deserve their place in a job of their choosing ?

Smokers, drug addicts, kiddy fiddlers, darth vader fanatics, gays, ladymen, alcoholics , Muslims, Christians, Jews, sadists, all live a different lifestyle. They shouldn't expect everyone else to follow their way. It's just not for everyone. 

"child molesters live on the fringes of society"

 

Really, that's how low you sink to defend your view?

 

Child molesters are filth and scum.

 

Discrimination because a person is a transgender woman is wrong.

[Justfine]

4 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

"child molesters live on the fringes of society"

 

Really, that's how low you sink to defend your view?

 

Child molesters are filth and scum.

 

Discrimination because a person is a transgender woman is wrong.

Same as not choosing someone with lots of tattoos.

[Get Real]

1 hour ago, DM07 said:

And they do not employ ladyboys, becaaaaaaaause.....?!

Please don't answer, it will be mind numbing, I guess!

You don´t know much about how to run a business, do you? They probably do not employ them of of the reason that they don´t believe it fits their business idea and way they are working towards their customers. Another reason might be that it in some kind of way do not promote their products or services in the way the company board of directors wants them to be promoted.

The point here was that they still did not respond like you changed it to, and that they without lying was as polite as they could have been.

Remember one very important thing. It´s not the employees choice to be employed, it´s the company´s choice to employ.

[Bluespunk]

3 minutes ago, Justfine said:

Same as not choosing someone with lots of tattoos.

No it's not.

 

Not that I have any objection to tattoos.

 

I have several, doesn't stop me doing my job.

[Spidey]

2 hours ago, Get Real said:

Nope, you own the company. You provide work. It´s your choice of workforce.
 

Not according to the law in most civilised countries.

[Spidey]

8 minutes ago, Get Real said:

You don´t know much about how to run a business, do you?

As, clearly, you don't! Any businessman will tell you that if you ride roughshod over employment law, you won't be in business for very long.

[Spidey]

8 minutes ago, Get Real said:

You don´t know much about how to run a business, do you?

As, clearly, you don't! Any businessman will tell you that if you ride roughshod over employment law, you won't be in business for very long.

[Justfine]

8 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

No it's not.

 

Not that I have any objection to tattoos.

 

I have several, doesn't stop me doing my job.

Yes it is. It's about image and appearances.

[Justfine]

6 minutes ago, Spidey said:

Not according to the law in most civilised countries.

Rubbish. You hire someone then tell the rest the job was filled. Don't even need to give a reason.