NYC can fine employers for referring to transsexuals by wrong pronoun

[demi-conservative]

(https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/ny...xuals-by-their)

Is this still planet earth?

[Jedidiah]

Swirling down the drain.

[Cow Poke]

In that case, maybe the employee needs to be called "former employee".

[Cow Poke]

Swirling down the drain.

Slouching toward Gamorrah.

[rogue06]

(https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/ny...xuals-by-their)

Is this still planet earth?

Free Speech is dead.

[Roy]

Warning: when I clicked the link my firewall went crazy.

[Adam]

What is it, something phonier than the Onion? I was especially skeptical of $250,000 fine.

[Psychic Missile]

You can read the announcement here. It isn't anything new, it's simply a clarification of current law.

[demi-conservative]

Warning: when I clicked the link my firewall went crazy.

Sounds like good firewall!!! Why make contact with reality unless we need to?!?!

[demi-conservative]

Adam: at first I couldn't believe my eyes too. But it's true and confirmed by other papers like WSJ.

[Starlight]

You can read the announcement here. It isn't anything new, it's simply a clarification of current law.

Having browsed that link and compared it to the OP, it appears the main points being made are as follows:

1. Harassment is banned. No name-calling. You can't refer to people with anti-gay slurs, and you can't insist on calling a person what they've repeatedly stated they don't want to be called. So if a person says they are a female and to call them "she", you're not allowed to go around calling them names or referring to them constantly as "he".

2. If someone is transgender you have to let them wear the uniform of whatever gender they prefer to wear. Accept their choice. You can't say "no, no, I've decided you're a man, so you're going to wear the men's uniform and not the women's one". They get to decide which uniform they are most comfortable wearing, not you.

3. Transgender people can use whatever gender's bathrooms they feel most comfortable using. Again, they get to decide what they are most comfortable with, not you.

99% of that seems just like basic respect for other people, and a general ban on workplace harassment of transgender people. You don't get to go around telling other people what their gender is, or insisting that everyone else conforms to your own views of gender.

The 1% that seems over the top to me is their requirement that for #3 that there can never be any request for any proof whatsoever that the person is transgender. A lot of people tend to view that as dangerous, because in addition to giving protection to transgender people, it gives legal rights to non-transgender people to go where they shouldn't. In practice, this loophole seems to have rarely been exploited, but it is generally viewed as a dangerous possibility. It seems to me that a much more reasonable requirement would be that a company who had concerns about bathroom usage should be allowed to request the employee supply their human-resources department with a medical certificate to the effect that they are transgender. That is, after all, how sick leave tends to work (here, at least) - if you take days off sick the company accepts it on good faith, but if they do have concerns about the legitimacy of it they have every right to legally require you to supply a medical certificate.

[Cow Poke]

Having browsed that link and compared it to the OP, it appears the main points being made are as follows:

1. Harassment is banned. No name-calling. You can't refer to people with anti-gay slurs, and you can't insist on calling a person what they've repeatedly stated they don't want to be called. So if a person says they are a female and to call them "she", you're not allowed to go around calling them names or referring to them constantly as "he".

2. If someone is transgender you have to let them wear the uniform of whatever gender they prefer to wear. Accept their choice. You can't say "no, no, I've decided you're a man, so you're going to wear the men's uniform and not the women's one". They get to decide which uniform they are most comfortable wearing, not you.

3. Transgender people can use whatever gender's bathrooms they feel most comfortable using. Again, they get to decide what they are most comfortable with, not you.

Ah, the bathroom thing again! So, my wife and daughters and granddaughters just have to accept a man using their restroom because he calls himself "Janie" and wears a dress.

99% of that seems just like basic respect for other people,

What about the man dressed as a woman and calling himself Janie - what respect does he show my wife and daughters? Seems pretty one-sided.

and a general ban on workplace harassment of transgender people. You don't get to go around telling other people what their gender is, or insisting that everyone else conforms to your own views of gender.

So, we just won't hire any transgendered people. Problem solved!

(I'm being PARTLY facetious, SL --- where have you been? I've missed you!)]

[Starlight]

So, my wife and daughters and granddaughters just have to accept a man using their restroom because he calls himself "Janie" and wears a dress.

Yes.

What about the man dressed as a woman and calling himself Janie - what respect does he show my wife and daughters?

???
It's not relevant to your wife or daughters.

So, we just won't hire any transgendered people. Problem solved!

Obviously that's banned. I didn't list it because it was self-evident.

[Cow Poke]

Yes.

No, actually, they don't.

???
It's not relevant to your wife or daughters.

Depends on the venue!

Obviously that's banned.

That's pure ignorance to think that employers will not use their own discretion to not hire transvestites, if they come with all that baggage, and they don't have to indicate that it's because they are transvestites. If somebody has an "all about me" problem, they can work elsewhere.

I didn't list it because it was self-evident.

It's downright nutty, is what it is. You can't force me to hire somebody who's going to make their own "comfort" superior to everybody else in the company. YOU might want to run a company that way, but it's idiotic.

[Starlight]

If somebody has an "all about me" problem, they can work elsewhere.

I think that's a completely reasonable attitude. Some people really are a nuisance in the workplace and avoiding hiring them is a good idea.

But them simply being transgender is not a legally valid reason to reject them, anymore than it's valid to refuse to hire someone because they're a Christian or because they're black.

As much as I might potentially get a kick out of telling any Christian job applicants where they could stick their job, I legally can't reject them simply on grounds of being Christian. But if they demonstrate in the interview that there are "all about me" people who are going to cause endless problems in the workplace by talking about their religion constantly and not being respectful of the views of others and generally cause mayhem, that's 100% a good reason to reject them.