Just now, faraday said:

Does anyone think, we should be forced by law, to refer to a ladyboy as she, or Tom as he?

 

or a white skinned foreigner as a 'farang'?

2 minutes ago, faraday said:

Does anyone think, we should be forced by law, to refer to a ladyboy as she, or Tom as he?

 

It works well.

36 minutes ago, soalbundy said:

If they don't interact with me it isn't, I can ignore the newspaper articles about them, about how unfair the world is, it's unfair to a lot of people, bi-polar, depressed, the handicapped and there are a lot more of them but they aren't so shockingly newsworthy, a peacock attracts more attention than a sparrow.

That’s not “in your face”, because it’s a news article or a transgender woman is working in a store you are in.

13 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

 

That's true but companies should have the right not to employ. What if a gay man wants to be a masseur in a straight place massage parlor for men?  or an LB wants to join the Army?  personally, I find most LB's dramatic and 'on edge' and I avoid them if there is a choice*

 

*edit - but I do agree they have a right 'to be' whatever they want but I have my right NOT to interact. 

If someone has the best qualifications for a job, then it is wrong to discriminate solely on the grounds they are a transgender woman. 

Seems there aren't any Canadian people on this thread.

 

Bill C16

 

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/breaking-canada-passes-radical-law-forcing-gender-theory-acceptance

1 minute ago, faraday said:

Does anyone think, we should be forced by law, to refer to a ladyboy as she, or Tom as he?

 

No but it's going that way in which case it's best not to refer to them at all.

A few years ago in big C there was a tubby 40 yr old in a shirt and tie with just a hint of lipstick serving at the sliced ham counter, he would always end his statements with 'kaa' instead of 'krap' no way would I say she to whatever he thought he was

9 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

or a white skinned foreigner as a 'farang'?

It's become general usage so I don't find it insulting.

Just now, Bluespunk said:

If someone has the best qualifications for a job, then it is wrong to discriminate solely on the grounds they are a transgender woman. 

It is a very, very difficult balance and I get the principle completely but I observe that the new 'pc' world does ignore the rights of those who employ and only focus on the employed. Is that 'balance'?  I'd prefer a middle way to be found so that both sides have their rights respected.

2 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

It is a very, very difficult balance and I get the principle completely but I observe that the new 'pc' world does ignore the rights of those who employ and only focus on the employed. Is that 'balance'?  I'd prefer a middle way to be found so that both sides have their rights respected.

Yes but this story is about a transgender woman who was refused a job because of who she is.

 

That’s outright discrimination. 

 

Employment suitability should be based on qualifications for the job, not who a person is. 

6 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

If someone has the best qualifications for a job, then it is wrong to discriminate solely on the grounds they are a transgender woman. 

unless of course there is a post to be filled for a recruitment person for the SAS, a diplomat for Saudi Arabia or a marriage guidance councillor, it all depends on the job and why open a can of worms anyway, do we have to have a transgender toilette ? will the staff accept this person?, will my customers have a problem ? etc. easier to take someone less confused.

Just now, Bluespunk said:

Yes but this story is about a transgender woman who was refused a job because of who she is.

 

That’s outright discrimination. 

 

Employment suitability should be based on qualifications for the job, not who a person is. 

Yes... but... on the 'other side', in some countries, there is 'positive discrimination'  for females, blacks or whatever. If we ended all of it that might be a step forward?  in some instances, playing football or tennis for instance, we allow discrimination. It's not black and white (forgive the pun).

1 hour ago, DM07 said:

Who was talking to you?

This is a public forum.  If you want to have a private conversation then do so.  Otherwise, expect interjections in response to your comments.

8 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

Yes but this story is about a transgender woman who was refused a job because of who she is.

 

That’s outright discrimination. 

 

Employment suitability should be based on qualifications for the job, not who a person is. 

Let me get this straight, if you'll pardon the expression, would the firms rejection have been more acceptable if they had been dishonest, 'we have found a more suitable candidate'?

9 minutes ago, soalbundy said:

unless of course there is a post to be filled for a recruitment person for the SAS, a diplomat for Saudi Arabia or a marriage guidance councillor, it all depends on the job and why open a can of worms anyway, do we have to have a transgender toilette ? will the staff accept this person?, will my customers have a problem ? etc. easier to take someone less confused.

Which is why I have being saying job suitability should be based on qualifications, and discrimination solely on the basis of being a transgender woman is wrong. 

8 minutes ago, soalbundy said:

Let me get this straight, if you'll pardon the expression, would the firms rejection have been more acceptable if they had been dishonest, 'we have found a more suitable candidate'?

Discrimination in the basis of being a transgender woman, no matter how worded, is never acceptable. 

14 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

Yes... but... on the 'other side', in some countries, there is 'positive discrimination'  for females, blacks or whatever. If we ended all of it that might be a step forward?  in some instances, playing football or tennis for instance, we allow discrimination. It's not black and white (forgive the pun).

Repealing legislation designed to end workplace discrimination would be a step backwards. 

2 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

Discrimination in the basis of being a transgender woman, no matter how worded, is never acceptable. 

what about the rights of a privately owned firm to decide who they want and don't want in their firm ?

Just now, Bluespunk said:

Repealing legislation designed to end workplace discrimination would be a step backwards. 

Yes it would. I can hope it evolves into a more balanced perspective. Very tricky area.

7 minutes ago, soalbundy said:

what about the rights of a privately owned firm to decide who they want and don't want in their firm ?

Discrimination on the basis of being who you are is wrong, whether it be the owner, co-workers, whoever. 

35 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

Yes but this story is about a transgender woman who was refused a job because of who she is.

 

That’s outright discrimination. 

 

Employment suitability should be based on qualifications for the job, not who a person is. 

He not she.

1 minute ago, Bluespunk said:

Discrimination on the basis of being who you are is wrong, whether it be the owner, co-workers, whoever. 

Who you are is the most important thing. 

1 minute ago, Justfine said:

He not she.

Not your decision, it’s hers.

2 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

Discrimination on the basis of being who you are is wrong, whether it be the owner, co-workers, whoever. 

it isn't nice but neither is curtailing the rights of a firm owner, you can't order acceptance, we haven't reached the dystopia of 1984 yet although I can see it coming.

Just now, Bluespunk said:

Not your decision, it’s hers.

Wrong it's biology. He is a he.

 

I'm not a fire truck and a male isn't a female.

 

A dog isn't a cat if it eats cat food or is best friends with a cat.

 

 

 

3 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

Not your decision, it’s hers.

The way I see him is my decision, he can see himself as a she

4 minutes ago, soalbundy said:

it isn't nice but neither is curtailing the rights of a firm owner, you can't order acceptance, we haven't reached the dystopia of 1984 yet although I can see it coming.

States may not be able to order acceptance but they can work to ensure equality and an end to discriminatory work practices.

 

Welcome to 2018.

3 minutes ago, soalbundy said:

The way I see him is my decision, he can see himself as a she

And she does.

1 hour ago, faraday said:

Does anyone think, we should be forced by law, to refer to a ladyboy as she, or Tom as he?

 

No one should be forced by law to call anyone anything!

It should be a matter of respect!

8 minutes ago, Justfine said:

Wrong it's biology. He is a he.

 

I'm not a fire truck and a male isn't a female.

 

A dog isn't a cat if it eats cat food or is best friends with a cat.

 

 

 

Nope.

 

It's not your decision.

 

If a transgender woman wishes to be addressed as she then that is her right.

 

Doesn't do me any harm to respect her wishes and I really don't get the vitriol it raises in others.

21 hours ago, 55Jay said:

Interesting juxtaposed to recent threads on TVF about Thailand's acceptance of ladyboys.   Age discrimination is rife here as well, a few different dynamics going on with that.

My wife has been told directly 'you're too old.' Office managers position. ( 55, don't tell her I told you. )

So they want a manager who is 20/22 and can take care of 15 to 20 staff who have been there for a few years!!!!!!!!