CA Cross-Dressers

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
Is the person doing his/her job well? That’s all I care about. The way our youth dresses today (tattoos, piercings etc) would have been shocking 2 decades ago.
[/quote]

Good to know for everyone who aspires to work for you.

[/quote]

For the record, when my wife and I owned a business together over 15 years ago, we once hired a dude whose appearance anywhere else (especially in a daycare or corporate setting) would have been shocking.

[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
Is the person doing his/her job well? That’s all I care about. The way our youth dresses today (tattoos, piercings etc) would have been shocking 2 decades ago.
[/quote]

Good to know for everyone who aspires to work for you.

[/quote]

For the record, when my wife and I owned a business together over 15 years ago, we once hired a dude whose appearance anywhere else (especially in a daycare or corporate setting) would have been shocking.[/quote]

Would you have still employed him in his current state if you started to lose business because of his apperance? I tend to agree with you ID, I just think when someone puts up their own capital or goes in debt under his name/credit to start a business they should have the final say, within reason of course.

Of course worst case scenario isn’t the norm, but once these laws are in place we all know how “interpretation” can vary.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Soulja874 wrote:

…The right to not employ certain people based on their personal beliefs?

That policy is already in effect.

[/quote]

Fallacious.

What if I believed in bathing in goat’s blood and wished to come to work with my body covered in it?

What if I believed in nudism and wanted to come to work naked?

What if I believed in piercings and wanted to come to work with one in my nose…three feet wide?

What if I believed in bathing only once every other month and wished to come to work in the time period in between?

Some of you people are less logical than a fucking jellyfish.
[/quote]

None of these scenarios make any sense.

Not bathing or bathing in blood and not washing it off both compromise public health. Being naked could also be unsanitary.your piercing would intrude on other peoples work space which would hinder their performance.

And performance is what work is about,right?

Lol “you people”

[quote]dk44 wrote:

[quote]Ct. Rockula wrote:
If someone needs to crossdress to feel comfortable let them be…as long as they perform at their job,who cares?[/quote]

KKK Robe, Check.[/quote]

Not checked at all.

Waering the hat and gloves would probably limit what the weaerer could do in a work setting. Depending on where this person worked loose clothing might also be a safety risk.

There is a cross-dressing grad student who works in my building. We are subject to OSHA and NRC regulations, because it is a research facility, so no feather boas or open-toe heels. He’s not flamboyant, anyway. Most trans people in the workplace don’t dress like drag queens, unless they’re in the entertainment business. Most of them just want to blend in and do their jobs.

[quote]dk44 wrote:
Of course worst case scenario isn’t the norm, but once these laws are in place we all know how “interpretation” can vary. [/quote]

[quote]dk44 wrote:
Just to be clear, I doubt anyone gives a fuck if you want to wear a dress, I sure don’t. But for a court to rule that a private company with a dress code in place cannot dictate what it’s employees wear is crazy.

How about this. What if tomorrow your boss brings you into his office and says you must start wearing a dress and make-up to work or risk being fired. What do you do? If the pay was good enough you might give in and play dress up, if the pay wasn’t good you would quit. So why throw a fit when the opposite is the case? [/quote]

The difference in your scenario is that the boss is basically telling you to do it or leave. The policy says a company has to give the option to its employees.

About the dress code,would it really change? Except for the line that seperates male and female,it wouldn’t,right? A guy wears womens work clothes to work,he doesn’t wear womens club clothes to work.

I just think you need to be careful that the guy wearing a dress isn’t just plain nuts. Not all guys wearing dresses are trans-gendered.

[quote]dk44 wrote:
If I bother you so much, why don’t you stay in Mexico. Idiot.[/quote]

Come on now. No one STAYS in Mexico on purpose lol

YAY!!! That white square I posted showed up,fuck!

[quote]Nards wrote:
YAY!!! That white square I posted showed up,fuck![/quote]

LOL!

Nards… figures.

For those of you who are wondering “Well, why can’t I wear a KKK robe since that’s what I believe in etc.,” this law isn’t about personal beliefs. It’s about the state making a policy decision that gender issues like transgender/transsexual whatever are an immutable, fundamental characteristic - like race, age, familial status, gender, etc. It’s about protecting people based on something they can’t change, not about protecting Lady Gaga fans from workplace ridicule.

Your belief in the KKK and desire to wear bedsheets to work is not a fundamental, immutable characteristic that is protected under the law.

I’m not saying that cross dressing is that type of immutable characteristic, or saying this is a good law or a bad law, but that is the basis for laws like this.

[quote]pushmepullme wrote:
For those of you who are wondering “Well, why can’t I wear a KKK robe since that’s what I believe in etc.,” this law isn’t about personal beliefs. It’s about the state making a policy decision that gender issues like transgender/transsexual whatever are an immutable, fundamental characteristic - like race, age, familial status, gender, etc. It’s about protecting people based on something they can’t change, not about protecting Lady Gaga fans from workplace ridicule.

Your belief in the KKK and desire to wear bedsheets to work is not a fundamental, immutable characteristic that is protected under the law.

I’m not saying that cross dressing is that type of immutable characteristic, or saying this is a good law or a bad law, but that is the basis for laws like this.[/quote]

Thank you.

Well this went to shit fairly quickly.

[quote]cct wrote:
I could see how some employee dressing stupid screwing over a business and elementary school kids would be scared shitless if they have a crossdressing teacher. People need to take the purpose of their jobs into consideration rather than care so much about their own feelings about fashion.[/quote]

this. i support peoples life choices, but this bill is silly

[quote]pushmepullme wrote:
It’s about protecting people based on something they can’t change, not about protecting Lady Gaga fans from workplace ridicule.
[/quote]

They should rename this law… The GaGa Law

Id like to say hello to PMPM,s vagina…look at it.

Looks cool,nice progress.

Fascinating arguments.

How do we feel about men in kilts. ?

Love my hiking kilt–get some “looks” but generally just questions about how it is to wear–and after all it is only a skirt by another name.

There was a transgendered fellow who used to work for a Chinese take out restaurant around here. The thing was, he had a horrible fashion sense and didn’t really put much effort into looking like a female so he may have just had a few screws loose as all the gays I know are quite fashionable.