llustration depicting trans discrimination goes viral

[Neeranam]

12 hours ago, rwill said:

I'm not sure I ever recall seeing a male bank teller in Thailand.

There are but there is a glass ceiling for men in that area. 

[Nojohndoe]

7 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

The level of ignorance and bigotry on this topic is not surprising.

Define that assessment please.

The same comment could be applied to the question of the color of roofing  materials in some cliques of opinion.

[Jingthing]

2 minutes ago, Nojohndoe said:

Define that assessment please.

The same comment could be applied to the question of the color of roofing  materials in some cliques of opinion.

Hard pass.

[Neeranam]

21 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

The level of ignorance and bigotry on this topic is not surprising.

Some examples would be appreciated rather than this "I am intelligent and right and others are wrong"

[Sparktrader]

6 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

They get the more responsible jobs (!) but male staff can be found as cashiers.   

 

Thank God that banks don't generally confront customers with trannies, though!

Make banking fun. Boring normally

. Should be all ladyboys dressed up too!

 

 

[Sparktrader]

Ladyboy Bank

Logo is pink and black figure 8

 

Opportunity!

 

 

[Nojohndoe]

2 minutes ago, Sparktrader said:

Ladyboy Bank

Logo is pink and black figure 8

 

Opportunity!

 

 

Avoid the  rush  folks! 

[Nojohndoe]

22 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Hard pass.

lol. Comprende !

[OneMoreFarang]

3 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

Can you quote a reputable case study where that happens?

That's one part. I don't know what she will decide next week.

Lia Thomas: Transgender UPenn swimmer sparks outrage (nypost.com)

 

[OneMoreFarang]

1 hour ago, mtraveler said:

What was the job?  They were jobs in Fortune 500 companies.  All sorts of jobs.  Link here, to read the article:  

 

https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2021/08/18/name-discrimination-jobs

 

I think you might have misunderstood my question about percentages.  I think there shouldn't be a list that says the next person must be "______".  But when you start looking at a job, and you see that 95% of the people holding that job are white men, then maybe you have a problem.  It's not fair to all the other people who are EQUALLY QUALIFIED, whether Black, female, trans, whatever.  I'm not talking about making accommodations for those less qualified.  I'm talking about, for example, a woman who is just as smart as the male applicants, but never seems to get that job.  That means there's something wrong there, and I think it's our responsibility to make things fair.  

 

Once again, if we look at job categories, and there are major imbalances in representation by different groups, it's time to fix that.  Up until now, most good jobs were held by White Men.   

 

Let's take as an example the Supreme Court.  There have been 115 Justices in the history of the Supreme Court.  110 men, 5 women.  112 White.  2 Black.  1 Hispanic.  "Why should any of us even try to work for anybody who doesn't want us?", you ask.  Well, I can think of a bunch of people who would love to be a Supreme Court Justice, after an exemplary career in law.  Why should they be limited by your set of rules, that tells them there are lots of other good jobs for them out there.  Think Ruth Bader Ginsberg should have worked at Hooters instead?  Or that she should never have been given a chance to be on the Supreme Court, and stayed with a lower court, or in a Private Law Firm?  What's fair about that?  No, I'm not talking about those less qualified, I am talking of those equally qualified, and underrepresented statistically. 

 

Another example:  Head coaches in the NFL.  Only 1 Black head coach, for 32 teams?  Why?  According to your beliefs, the black men who want to be head coaches should just be happy with some other job.  Is that really fair?  Lesser opportunities?  Less pay?  I'm again talking about those with equal qualifications.  And if you're not aware, there are studies that show that the few Black head coaches that have been in the NFL have been judged on a very different curve than their White counterparts.  

 

Once again, if this was all fair and all sorts of people were equally represented, this wouldn't be an issue.  But the problem is that it IS NOT.  And if companies can't find a fair way to give all Equal Opportunity, something has to be done.  

 

If overall the odds were equal, we wouldn't need laws or policing to make them fair.  Why should non-White, non-Male humans have less opportunities than White Males?

Thanks, I get your point and in principle you are right.

Let's look at that US supreme court for a moment. The president decided he wants to nominate a black woman, obviously for political reasons. According to one politician (who I don't like) that means 94% of the possible candidates don't even have to apply because they are not black and female. Is that fair? Personally I don't mind if a woman or a man or anything in between gets that job and I also don't care about the person's skin color. But I think it would be best for everybody if the person is the best qualified person for that job. And it seems qualification is often best case 2nd priority for some social worriers. 

[bunnydrops]

8 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Or should the responsible boss/manager look that the new person will fit into the existing team? 

What, working with his own prejudices and assumptions? I guess he should also be able to pick who he serves?

[Bluespunk]

1 hour ago, Nojohndoe said:

Do you say that as a transposed gender ?

I consider myself rigidly  straight ! Take the pun if it amuses !

The concept of "we are are born as we are" contradicts the " We are the gender we are(Identify as) and personally I  have no objection to either ideology so long as there is no element of deception or attempt  to .

 

Deception? What are you on about?

[Bluespunk]

19 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

That's one part. I don't know what she will decide next week.

Lia Thomas: Transgender UPenn swimmer sparks outrage (nypost.com)

 

So you can’t then. Thought not. 

[Longwood50]

12 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Why should companies not be allowed to choose who they employ?

You are absolutely correct.  I can tell you from working for several major banks in the USA that the laws that were passed to provide "equal" rights have had some perverse unintended consequences. 

Instead of being "equal" certain groups based on age, religion, ethnicity, or sexual orientation can "sue" for discrimination if they either don't get a position or are terminated or demoted.  That means if you are not one of the protected groups you actually are not equal, you have fewer rights. 

Second, because of the threat of lawsuits, companies are extremely reluctant to discipline or fire those that are part of the protected groups because of both the fear of losing the lawsuit and the expense of defending against the lawsuit.  They find it easier just to "cope" with the problem.  That has the perverse effect of making the organization very hesitant to hire even more employees who are part of the protected class for fear they are adding to the population of employees that potentially could sue them.  That hurts the very qualified candidate who is part of a protected class but now finds that works against them. 

Also you raise a good point about other factors.  If you work for lets say a liberal organization like the New York Times or internet based Salon.com it is not just your job qualifications but also if the candidate is a good fit in the workplace.  A staunch conservative at either of those companies will hardly be a welcome addition to  their fellow coworkers. 

 

[OneMoreFarang]

2 minutes ago, bunnydrops said:

What, working with his own prejudices and assumptions? I guess he should also be able to pick who he serves?

Sure. If it is his business or the shareholders gave him the job to run that business then why not?

And this applies to many people, races, gender, etc.

Try to go into a Japanese club. They won't let you in unless you are Japanese.

Go to a disco and find out if the bouncers like your face. Will you complain if they don't let you in because they don't like you (for whatever reason)?

[bunnydrops]

75 years ago I was born in the old US south. Maybe a third of the locals were black. I rarely saw black people, not in my school, not at the stores my family went to. You know why? They just wouldn't fit in.

Edited March 12, 2022 by bunnydrops
typo

[Nojohndoe]

3 minutes ago, Longwood50 said:

You are absolutely correct.  I can tell you from working for several major banks in the USA that the laws that were passed to provide "equal" rights have had some perverse unintended consequences. 

Instead of being "equal" certain groups based on age, religion, ethnicity, or sexual orientation can "sue" for discrimination if they either don't get a position or are terminated or demoted.  That means if you are not one of the protected groups you actually are not equal, you have fewer rights. 

Second, because of the threat of lawsuits, companies are extremely reluctant to discipline or fire those that are part of the protected groups because of both the fear of losing the lawsuit and the expense of defending against the lawsuit.  They find it easier just to "cope" with the problem.  That has the perverse effect of making the organization very hesitant to hire even more employees who are part of the protected class for fear they are adding to the population of employees that potentially could sue them.  That hurts the very qualified candidate who is part of a protected class but now finds that works against them. 

Also you raise a good point about other factors.  If you work for lets say a liberal organization like the New York Times or internet based Salon.com it is not just your job qualifications but also if the candidate is a good fit in the workplace.  A staunch conservative at either of those companies will hardly be a welcome addition to  their fellow coworkers. 

 

And that is how distorted it has  become.

[OneMoreFarang]

54 minutes ago, grahamuk said:

 

You are wrong!

Many people, including me, have no problem with gays, lesbians, transgender and others. Live and lets live. They are who they are. We can all live happily together and words like mutant are just derogatory. 

But, for many of us who accept these not straight people, there is a huge difference between accepting them and supporting them to get always what they want.

I.e. if I know a gay guy who is a computer expert I wouldn't hesitate to recommend him to my friends or business partners.

But if I know a guy who is gay and just an average computer guy then I won't recommend him to anybody only because he is gay minority and he thinks he should be supported.

[OneMoreFarang]

4 minutes ago, bunnydrops said:

75 years ago I was born in the old US south. Maybe a third of the locals were black. I rarely saw black people, not in my school, not at the stores my family went to. You know why? They just wouldn't fit in.

I wonder if you would have lived in a location nearby and you were black. Would you expect many white people in the street where you lived? Would you expect many white people in your school?

 

Obviously part of that is racism, and probably mostly racism of the white people. But I am sure lots of people just feel more comfortable with "similar" people.

[mtraveler]

23 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Thanks, I get your point and in principle you are right.

Let's look at that US supreme court for a moment. The president decided he wants to nominate a black woman, obviously for political reasons. According to one politician (who I don't like) that means 94% of the possible candidates don't even have to apply because they are not black and female. Is that fair? Personally I don't mind if a woman or a man or anything in between gets that job and I also don't care about the person's skin color. But I think it would be best for everybody if the person is the best qualified person for that job. And it seems qualification is often best case 2nd priority for some social worriers. 

So, 94% of the possible candidates don't need to apply.  And in the past, all the Blacks, women, and many other minorities (Native American, for example) didn't need to apply.  The door was shut to them.  Every time a White Man was chosen (well, 111 out of 115 times).  And again, this goes to statistics.  If 12% of the country is Black, then there should be a 12% chance.  Of course, that doesn't mean that particular time it must be a Black person, but over a long period of time, it should be close to the population distribution, assuming there is a fair system.  

 

Asking "is that fair" in a vacuum is not fair.  What is fair about the fact that over 200+ years there have only been 3 people of color, and only 5 women?  If you rolled dice 115 times and they came up "White Male" 111 times, someone would think the dice were loaded.  Had there been fairness before this, there would be no need to be "unfair" now, by saying that you wanted a black woman.  (And by the way, Reagan promised to nominate a woman to the Supreme Court, and I don't think anyone got upset.  Is it that it's a Democrat making the nomination, or is it the fact that it's a Black Woman?)

 

Once again, if all were fair, I would agree with you.  But it is sad to say that.... it's not fair.  

[Nojohndoe]

1 minute ago, OneMoreFarang said:

You are wrong!

Many people, including me, have no problem with gays, lesbians, transgender and others. Live and lets live. They are who they are. We can all live happily together and words like mutant are just derogatory. 

But, for many of us who accept these not straight people, there is a huge difference between accepting them and supporting them to get always what they want.

I.e. if I know a gay guy who is a computer expert I wouldn't hesitate to recommend him to my friends or business partners.

But if I know a guy who is gay and just an average computer guy then I won't recommend him to anybody only because he is gay minority and he thinks he should be supported.

And there is the reality of it ! Any interaction with or between people need be on the basis of social capacity  in function socially or in employment.

There is a genuine need to legislate against discrimination  on the established grounds as do exist in the civilized world (Haha)  but when that  is extended into  claims to positions of  employment  etc based on perceived  gender identity representation then  the obvious solution is a freakin  robot with  zero gender and an clear acrylic casing  to  obviate any classification on any grounds  other than "latest electronic functionary " Look ono and weep  human dorks of any  colour or affiliation!

[jak2002003]

4 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

No, I don't think it is fair to get employment percentages by race/gender/whatever to match population distributions.

I think people should be employed according to their qualifications and according to other criteria how they fit into an existing team. If 7 out of 10 employees are white and male, fine, and if 5 are trans and 5 are gay that is also fine, it depends on whoever hires them. I.e. if I would hire people then it is less likely that I hire trans people.

If a trans person hires people then I am sure he/she will more likely hire other trans people.

It is up to each boss who they want to hire.

 

What was the job?

Lets say a group of 3 black rappers are looking for somebody to join them, what do you think who would have the highest chance to join them? An old white man? Probably not. And why? Because they will likely feel more comfortable with another black person with similar background. And why not, it's up to them.

 

There are enough jobs out there for all of us. Why should any of us even try to work for anybody who doesn't want us (for whatever reason)? If I would apply to work as a waiter for Hooters I am pretty sure they wouldn't invite me for a job interview. Should I cry now? Or think about another job?

 

One one hand you say you think people should be employed due to their qualifications and abilities, the on the other you are saying companies are right to refuse employment to people if they are trans / LGBQ ...even if they are qualified!!!!

 

[Longwood50]

37 minutes ago, Nojohndoe said:

And that is how distorted it has  become

Yes, I can tell you from personal experience that I had a female minority employee that was terrible.   Despite numerous documented instances of poor behavior, attendance and job performance Human Resources would not allow us to put her on probation leading to terminating her.  They openly said, she had threated to sue for discrimination if she was released. 

I can assure you that experience imprinted on many of us the hesitation to hire additional "protected class" employees.  If we made a mistake hiring a caucasian male, they were put on probation and terminated.  A member of a protected class if we made an error in hiring there was little recourse but to live with the mistake. 

One of the tactics I saw employed was to give the worker great reviews and suggest they apply for other positions that were promotional opportunities.  Essentially passing the old maid card to another area.  

We eventually were able to get rid of the employee but it took a great deal of effort.  We had to combine certain departments and eliminate as part of it positions that were "no longer required"  Hers was one of the positions that was deemed no longer required.  That meant for some years we could not rehire into a similar position but rather her job responsibilities were split up and assigned to other workers to perform. 

[onthedarkside]

Several posts have been removed for violating the following forum rule:

 

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.

[EVENKEEL]

28 minutes ago, jak2002003 said:

 

One one hand you say you think people should be employed due to their qualifications and abilities, the on the other you are saying companies are right to refuse employment to people if they are trans / LGBQ ...even if they are qualified!!!!

 

If you're running a business based on walk in customers am I supposed to hire an ugly 6'02" guy who just last month decided perhaps he was a she and wants to dress like a female just because of that. Can't an employer be honest and say you would be bad for business and you won't be considered. 

 

I've always had a desire to be a stripper, should I seriously be considered for the position. Is that fair?

[Jingthing]

36 minutes ago, Longwood50 said:

Yes, I can tell you from personal experience that I had a female minority employee that was terrible.   Despite numerous documented instances of poor behavior, attendance and job performance Human Resources would not allow us to put her on probation leading to terminating her.  They openly said, she had threated to sue for discrimination if she was released. 

I can assure you that experience imprinted on many of us the hesitation to hire additional "protected class" employees.  If we made a mistake hiring a caucasian male, they were put on probation and terminated.  A member of a protected class if we made an error in hiring there was little recourse but to live with the mistake. 

One of the tactics I saw employed was to give the worker great reviews and suggest they apply for other positions that were promotional opportunities.  Essentially passing the old maid card to another area.  

We eventually were able to get rid of the employee but it took a great deal of effort.  We had to combine certain departments and eliminate as part of it positions that were "no longer required"  Hers was one of the positions that was deemed no longer required.  That meant for some years we could not rehire into a similar position but rather her job responsibilities were split up and assigned to other workers to perform. 

Hopefully you would be fair to the next minority applicant and not punish her based on a bad experience with one of your hires. 

 

But based on the toxic tone of your description of your experience its pretty obvious that you probably wouldn't.

[Jingthing]

This is your brain.

 

This is your brain on white resentment.

 

 

Edited March 12, 2022 by Jingthing

[BangkokReady]

10 hours ago, placeholder said:

But I did enjoy the note of whining self pity "Some companies don't want white males anymore." It is to laugh.

You really can't take the moral high ground and claim equality then ridicule someone in such a way.  You lose all credibility.

[DefaultName]

I was UK Civil Service before retiring.  As a middle-aged, straight, white, male, there was no discrimination against me.  But.  There was some project or other for just about every other group you can think of.  Which added up to discrimination against me by the back door. 

 

We ended up with some right incompetents in charge because they fit the quotas.

[BangkokReady]

Do these people even know where they are?  Isn't Thailand one of the top countries for discriminating against someone based on their looks?