Would You Mind IF Your Child's Male Teacher Wore A Dress? (racist, myth)

[GuyNTexas]

Originally Posted by nimchimpsky

A warning to other readers: long post ahead.

Another manifestation of our society's downfall ... everything has to be reduced to soundbites and "tweets", else many lose interest.

Originally Posted by nimchimpsky

I can understand that, although I have to admit that it sort of implies that you don't view a transgender woman as as female as a biological woman. Whether you do or not, I don't know, but that's the message that comes across when you allow bio-women to wear a dress but not a transgender woman, who is just as female in all ways but anatomical.

From your perspective, I understand your point, but disagree, so let me be perfectly honest ... I don't consider a transgendered just as female as a biological female precisely because they are not just as female. You seem to want to dismiss the biological element as an insignificant detail ... and that is the big pink elephant standing in the middle of the room here.

Now don't misunderstand what I'm about to say as some indictment or criticism ... because I don't intend this to be at all insulting to anyone (particularly you) ... but the "transgender" situation is an anomaly or abnormality relative to the physical-anatomical-biochemical makeup of the male and female of our species. The psychological aspect is but one element, which is not even close to being the predominate or determining factor, except perhaps in the minds of those so affected.

You know, you can find people in this world that think they are the reincarnation of George Washington, but does that mean we should all address them as Mr. President?

The point I'm driving at here is that we need a lot more honesty ... and a lot less self delusion in this world. With regard to the transgendered person, there is a disconnect between the anatomical and biochemical. That's the reality of it. That's the truth of the matter. Pretending differently won't change that, regardless of who's doing the pretending.

Based on my understanding of how human biology works ... a biochemical anomaly accounts for much of the psychological aspects of transgender ... so, in that sense, it's a physical matter ... but so is the anatomical one. It's not valid to only recognize one while ignoring the other, especially when the other is the only visible and readily detectable one. And it's not legitimate for anyone to fault another, in this case, "society" for refusing to ignore the most obvious.

Originally Posted by nimchimpsky

I totally understand what you are saying. The sense of self-entitlement so many people have these days drives me nuts too. I agree with you 100%.

There are three ways this scenario could go.

1) Society accommodates transgender person; transgender person does not accommodate society

This would be the classic case of a trans person having to correct every person's pronoun usage, turning every conversation into a trans rights issue, demanding to be exempt of dress codes both in terms of formal/casual and gender expression, etc. In this case, the transgender person is demanding accommodations without being willing to accommodate others.

2) Transgender person accommodates society; society does not accommodate transgender person

This would be the most common scenario. The transgender person is forced to live as their biological sex, and is not given any room to express their true psychological gender. Most transgender people live in this situation. Many who don't have had to grow up in this situation.

3) Transgender person accommodates society AND society accommodates transgender person.

This would be the most ideal scenario. Both sides are trying their best to accommodate the other, while still respecting themselves enough to meet their own needs. This would involve allowing a transgender person to express their gender identity, but at the same time, beyond that, the transgender person wouldn't demand any special treatment (such as being able to show up in jeans when no one else can).

Here ... we have a problem. Your #3 scenario ..... what accommodation is the transgendered person making? Nothing. That he/she not wear jeans? Come on ... you're smarter than that. This isn't an accommodation ... agreeing not to demand "special treatment" is not a compromise since no one is owed special treatment to begin with But that is precisely what the issue almost always boils down to when it comes to "special interests", be it ethnic, gender, or other, based groups. Special treatment ... special accommodation .... special consideration is what is most often demanded.

Now you and others may totally disagree with this ... but in my view, accommodation=compromise ...and a fair compromise might consist of society (in this case the school) saying hey ... we aren't going to dismiss you because you are transgendered ... and we aren't going to discriminate against you because of it. But, in consideration of those who are uncomfortable with it ... we would ask you to refrain from wearing dresses because your status as a biological male is well known. And we don't feel that such an accommodation poses an undue hardship on you, because most of our biological female teachers wear slacks as a matter of choice, so doing so will not require you to act or dress any differently than the other females automatically do.

As I've said already, it seems that the teacher isn't interested in anything other than one way accommodation ... and has made this into a political statement ... which in turn is creating a distraction/controversy.

Originally Posted by nimchimpsky

I totally agree, but the problem is that most people preach this in one direction. They complain about how people are self-entitled and selfish, but fail to see they themselves are being selfish. It needs to happen in both directions to be successful.

For example, it used to be that parents would listen to teachers and always blame the kid. Then it flipped around and now parents only listen to the kid and blame the teacher. There's a happy medium between these two extremes. Sometimes the teacher is right; sometimes the kid is right; sometimes both are right or wrong. Each scenario needs to be assessed individually.

I think most transgender women probably would wear slacks more often than skirts anyway, particularly in professional settings. The only exception would be when the women's dress code required skirts or dresses.

That doesn't seem to be the situation in this case. And if it were, then the teacher would have some validity to her argument. In lieu of that, she doesn't ... she's pushing an agenda ... trying to make a political statement.

Originally Posted by nimchimpsky

Unfortunately what is constitutional or not isn't always a valid argument IMO. Legally, black people were considered 3/5 of a person. Alcohol used to be banned. I'm not sure that just because something is constitutional it is right, and just because something is not, it is wrong.

I agree, but this is the misapplied foundation for many arguments insofar as individual rights are concerned, is it not? The protection from discrimination? Is this not what the teacher is doing ... claiming that she is being discriminated against for not being allowed to wear dresses?

Originally Posted by nimchimpsky

I am not saying that transgender people should not follow the dress code for their profession. I am simply saying they should be allowed to follow the dress code in a way that reflects their gender. This can still be done while reflecting the level of formality required for a profession. For example, I would expect a female-to-male employee to wear a suit if that's what everyone else is wearing. I would expect a male-to-female employee to wear a dress if that's what everyone else was wearing as well.

The problem with taking the general population consensus with trans issues is that most people don't know what it's like to be trans. Most people don't have the inherent understanding that is required to understand what is fair for a trans person. I see this happening with the deaf community as well. For a long time, the deaf were subjected to rules made by hearing people. Hearing people don't know what it's like to be deaf, so their laws were not well-suited to the deaf. In the end, deaf people were harmed extensively as a result of being controlled by people who inherently don't understand their condition. Deaf people were forced to learn speech and banned from using sign language, and it ended up leaving a lot of deaf people performing at only 10% of their capacity. They were so unsuccessful in hearing society that they isolated themselves socially for a long time.

It took deaf leaders who understood what it's like to be forced to learn speech only, and why it doesn't work, to advocate for sign language in deaf schools and deaf communities. Now the deaf are much more successful than they used to be, because they are being led by people who inherently understand their condition. Now deaf people as a whole can function much better in society because they are given the language and communication skills they need to make it in mainstream society. When dealing with a minority group of people who's experience is so different from that of the mainstream, it doesn't make sense for the mainstream to have a complete say over how they live their lives.

I agree that the trans community should remain as respectful as possible, and be willing to accommodate society as much as they can, but people who are not trans, have no experience with trans feelings, and just don't know what it's like, can't be in charge of trans people. It takes trans leaders who understand what it's like to be trans to help the trans community to a point that they can blend in with mainstream society and function well, without imposing their distinct needs on others. When their needs are met at the beginning, they are then able to accommodate mainstream society much more effectively.

You're a very rational, logical, and fair minded person ... with a blind spot (and no pun intended!!!!) Give us what we demand, and then we can talk about accommodating you ... seems to be the message here.

And this obviously comes from the fundamental premise that transgender is normal, and all that is required is for everyone to agree ... problem solved. But it's not normal ... that doesn't mean that someone should be ridiculed, or treated badly ... or denied their right to live their lives as they deem appropriate ....but there are boundries to be respected on BOTH SIDES ... and it's just a matter of degrees. The etreme pro-trans will demand no boundaries or accommodation of society ... while the other extreme no accommodation in the other direction. And in both scenarios you can readily expect extreme abuse ... including flamboyant dress to the point of severe distraction ... to outright denial of any rights whatsoever.

Again ... the teacher is behaving childishly by the insinuated claim that biological Mary can wear dresses, therefore, so should I be able to ... dismissing any need to compromise. And that attitude is self defeating, because those who refuse to accommodate others are far less likely to receive accommodation in return.

Originally Posted by nimchimpsky

Precisely. Luckily it costs businesses nothing to allow trans people to dress as their preferred gender. All that requires is a little bit of tolerance.

I don't think we need extra bathrooms, personally, but that is a matter of debate in the trans community. First, I use private stall bathroom whenever I can. I use the family restroom in public areas that have multiple-stall men's and women's restrooms. I avoid using the public men's or women's but if I absolutely have to, I use the women's because stalls are much more private than urinals and women's restrooms also accommodate the extra needs biological women have for using the restroom.

That's because you are reasonable ... and that's not always the case. In fact, I would suggest that you are the exception, rather than the rule. There are documented cases where transgendered persons have sued employers to install special facilities to accommodate them.

Originally Posted by nimchimpsky

I just listed some other solutions as well. Public restrooms can have a single stall to accommodate more than one demographic at the same time--the disabled, families, and transgender people.

There has also been a push to make all public restrooms unisex ... again, the majority are vehemently opposed to such a thing, and justifiably so. This is another case of the tail waging the dog ... or ... "if I'm to be uncomfortable using the restroom .. let's level the field and make everyone uncomfortable."

Originally Posted by nimchimpsky

Of course not. But trans identity runs much deeper than TV channel preference. To give you an idea, how would you feel if you were forced to dress like a woman every day, and everyone called you she and ma'am constantly? How would you feel if no matter how many times you told people you are a man, they still kept treating you like a woman? That's life for most trans people most of the time.

How does this coincide with the teacher wearing slacks, like so many other females do? I've already commented that the case would be entirely different by forcing a biological female transgender to wear a dress.

And if the distinction is so difficult for the average person to immediately make ... it's simply a part of the situation which cannot be avoided, nor is it anyone's fault. If a biological male transgender look so much like a man to everyone already ... wearing a dress isn't going to accomplish anything other than causing people to wonder "why is that man wearing a dress"?

Originally Posted by nimchimpsky

Again I do advocate trans people being respectful of society as much as anyone else, but allowing them to express their psychological gender is simply too fundamental to sacrifice for the comfort of society. There is a certain point where you have to decide whether it's worth giving up yourself entirely for others or whether you can respect others while still respecting yourself. Transgender feelings run so deep that not being able to express them often leads to suicidal feelings. Many trans people who have been forced to live as their biological sex have contemplated suicide many times and some have committed suicide. To deny a person a part of their self that is so deep and important to them is much more selfish, IMO. Transgender people need to be able to live as their psychological gender, and can do so while still accommodating society in other ways.

Now, you are rationalizing to the point of extremes. If wearing slacks is so psychologically damaging to the "female psychi" of the transgendered person ... I suggest that they are extremely troubled, given the fact that most women wear slacks everyday of their lives ... even the ones that choose to wear a dress to work, generally can't wait to get home and put on a pair of jeans. If the only thing that makes a transgender feel fully female is wearing a dress ... I don't believe the dress is the problem.

Originally Posted by nimchimpsky

For a cross-dresser, where it really is just about clothes, this analogy applies. For a transgender person who identifies as the opposite sex in all ways, it is much more profound than attire. Even in the most professional of situations, people are allowed to keep the core of their being. The analogy does not apply for transsexual and transgender people because in both of those cases, it's a matter of core being and not just social convention.

I would say that many people do recognize it. They simply only recognize it in one direction. People see it clearly when they are not being accommodated, but few people see it when others aren't being accommodated. We live in a chaotic world because most people are not willing to look at themselves and realize when they are doing the very things they hate in others. They want to be accommodated but don't want to accommodate others, and so it takes looking at oneself to realize this and then give what you get.

I agree ... and I also would note that everyone expresses biases. In this case, you keep returning to the need for the 99% to accommodate the 1%, whereas I'm suggesting that the teacher demanding to be allowed to wear a dress to school isn't even close to meeting the school (or the parents) half way.

The biological male or female teacher is just another teacher in the eyes of the students ... and they will either respect the teacher or not, based on the personality and conduct of the teacher. There is no "gender issue" involved. However, in this case, the teacher is not only allowing ... but is perpetuating and injecting her "gender issues" into the equation, and doing so is wrong, because it is detracting from the job of simply being a teacher ... unless of course, the teacher has an undeclared motive and goal to teach off curricula lessons here? This is pretty obvious, don't you think?

Of course this is what's happening ... which is why the parents and the school are resisting. Let's face reality and be honest ... the teacher is pushing an agenda, and using the school as her forum for political change. And it's not the appropriate venue for it ... with the primary casualties of her political battle .... the children. And I can think of no better definition of "selfishness".

It might be a different case if this "teacher" were pushing her personal agenda as a member of some other profession ... say, an attorney. In this scenario, clients would have a choice in deciding if they wanted her representation ... if the Law Practice didn't find her transgender status inconsistent with the image of the firm ... this would keep an adult issue between adults ... while maintaining the element of "choice".

In a school environment ... and particularly younger children ... this is a case of forcing adult issues into the picture ... with no choice available. These children are in school to learn how to read and write and do math ... not be taught the birds and the bees and the in-betweens. Contrary to what some might say ... children don't need to be concerned with, or be burdened with other people's adult gender/sex issues.

I believe your personal bias in this is matter is clouding your otherwise good judgment and intelligent assessments of what constitutes life liberty and the pursuit of happiness ... for all (including the definition of compromise)

[nimchimpsky]

Originally Posted by GuyNTexas

Another manifestation of our society's downfall ... everything has to be reduced to soundbites and "tweets", else many lose interest.

I was just putting up that warning for other posters.

From your perspective, I understand your point, but disagree, so let me be perfectly honest ... I don't consider a transgendered just as female as a biological female precisely because they are not just as female. You seem to want to dismiss the biological element as an insignificant detail ... and that is the big pink elephant standing in the middle of the room here.

Thanks for your honesty. I had a feeling that was the case and am glad you can admit it. I do acknowledge the anatomical aspect, but it is a small part of the picture, and it's the part of the picture that most people seem to blow up into everything. Many people think gender is defined by anatomy--and that is simply not always the case. Even biology has shades of gray when hormones, DNA, and secondary sex characteristics are taken into account.

Now don't misunderstand what I'm about to say as some indictment or criticism ... because I don't intend this to be at all insulting to anyone (particularly you) ... but the "transgender" situation is an anomaly or abnormality relative to the physical-anatomical-biochemical makeup of the male and female of our species. The psychological aspect is but one element, which is not even close to being the predominate or determining factor, except perhaps in the minds of those so affected.

I totally agree. And that's why transgender people cannot be treated like everyone else--because they aren't like everyone else. Transgender people shouldn't be treated better than everyone else, but they should be treated equally. It's akin to providing a blind person with braille, but still expecting them to do the class reading.

You know, you can find people in this world that think they are the reincarnation of George Washington, but does that mean we should all address them as Mr. President?

No, but if that is how they introduced themselves, I would nod, introduce myself, and move on. I wouldn't feel the need to correct them or "set them straight" or what have you. I think that's the issue here. By enforcing that transgender women not wear a dress, that's an attempt to "set someone else straight" by one's own standards instead of just letting them be.

The point I'm driving at here is that we need a lot more honesty ... and a lot less self delusion in this world. With regard to the transgendered person, there is a disconnect between the anatomical and biochemical. That's the reality of it. That's the truth of the matter. Pretending differently won't change that, regardless of who's doing the pretending.

You're right--there is a disconnect between the anatomical and the biomechanical. It's scientifically proven. The brains of trasngender people look much more like the brains of the opposite sex, both in terms of hormone levels and relative size of various glands, etc.

Based on my understanding of how human biology works ... a biochemical anomaly accounts for much of the psychological aspects of transgender ... so, in that sense, it's a physical matter ... but so is the anatomical one. It's not valid to only recognize one while ignoring the other, especially when the other is the only visible and readily detectable one. And it's not legitimate for anyone to fault another, in this case, "society" for refusing to ignore the most obvious.

I agree and I acknowledge both. To expect transgender people to live just like cisgender people is to ignore the biomechanical reality of transsexuality.

Here ... we have a problem. Your #3 scenario ..... what accommodation is the transgendered person making? Nothing. That he/she not wear jeans? Come on ... you're smarter than that. This isn't an accommodation ... agreeing not to demand "special treatment" is not a compromise since no one is owed special treatment to begin with But that is precisely what the issue almost always boils down to when it comes to "special interests", be it ethnic, gender, or other, based groups. Special treatment ... special accommodation .... special consideration is what is most often demanded.

The transgender person is still following all the same social rules as everyone else--the only difference being according to their psychological gender. Cunucu Beach pointed out that the law detailed that transgender people would not have to follow the dress code at all, and that I personally disagree with. Transgender people should still be subject to all aspects of a dress code, the only difference being that they do so based on their gender identity and not their anatomy.

Now you and others may totally disagree with this ... but in my view, accommodation=compromise ...and a fair compromise might consist of society (in this case the school) saying hey ... we aren't going to dismiss you because you are transgendered ... and we aren't going to discriminate against you because of it. But, in consideration of those who are uncomfortable with it ... we would ask you to refrain from wearing dresses because your status as a biological male is well known. And we don't feel that such an accommodation poses an undue hardship on you, because most of our biological female teachers wear slacks as a matter of choice, so doing so will not require you to act or dress any differently than the other females automatically do.

I agree with this. And that is exactly what I am advocating--that they not be required to dress any differently than other females automatically do. If other females automatically wear slacks, so should male-to-female transgender teachers. As I mentioned earlier, the only scenario where I believe a transgender teacher would have to be allowed to wear a dress is if the dress code specified skirts and dresses for female teachers. In that case it is not special treatment, but equal treatment.

As I've said already, it seems that the teacher isn't interested in anything other than one way accommodation ... and has made this into a political statement ... which in turn is creating a distraction/controversy.

This teacher in particular--yes. But there are plenty of transgender people out there that are willing to accommodate others as well.

hat doesn't seem to be the situation in this case. And if it were, then the teacher would have some validity to her argument. In lieu of that, she doesn't ... she's pushing an agenda ... trying to make a political statement.

Just to be clear, I've been speaking beyond this particular case. I am speaking about the transgender community as a whole.

I agree, but this is the misapplied foundation for many arguments insofar as individual rights are concerned, is it not? The protection from discrimination? Is this not what the teacher is doing ... claiming that she is being discriminated against for not being allowed to wear dresses?

I don't understand how it's a misapplied foundation. Can you explain?

You're a very rational, logical, and fair minded person ... with a blind spot (and no pun intended!!!!) Give us what we demand, and then we can talk about accommodating you ... seems to be the message here.

All people need something to give before they can give. A child needs to be loved before they learn to love others. Children need support before they can become supportive parents. You can't ask someone for $100 when they have $0 in their bank account. They need $100 from the get-go so they can then multiply that $100 and give back to society. This applies to humans in general.

Accommodating a transgender person's gender identity is no "special treatment". As you stated yourself, transgender people are the anomaly. This is true genetically and so on and so forth, so what may seem "special treatment" is actually just part of the basic needs everyone needs. The fact is that the social structure of gender already accommodates the general population. The general population already has that right as a given. However because transgender people are the anomaly, their baseline needs may seem special and are in fact different, but they are equivalent to the basic needs that are met for the general population as a whole. The fact of the matter is that you, your parents, and every cisgender (non-trans) person already has their needs for expressing their gender identity met. That's already there for you. This is not special treatment for transgender people--it's equal treatment.

And this obviously comes from the fundamental premise that transgender is normal, and all that is required is for everyone to agree ... problem solved. But it's not normal ... that doesn't mean that someone should be ridiculed, or treated badly ... or denied their right to live their lives as they deem appropriate ....but there are boundries to be respected on BOTH SIDES ... and it's just a matter of degrees. The etreme pro-trans will demand no boundaries or accommodation of society ... while the other extreme no accommodation in the other direction. And in both scenarios you can readily expect extreme abuse ... including flamboyant dress to the point of severe distraction ... to outright denial of any rights whatsoever.

Agreed. I suppose you and I just disagree on where the compromise should be made.

Again ... the teacher is behaving childishly by the insinuated claim that biological Mary can wear dresses, therefore, so should I be able to ... dismissing any need to compromise. And that attitude is self defeating, because those who refuse to accommodate others are far less likely to receive accommodation in return.

Again, agreed, at least in this particular case.

That's because you are reasonable ... and that's not always the case. In fact, I would suggest that you are the exception, rather than the rule. There are documented cases where transgendered persons have sued employers to install special facilities to accommodate them.

I would be surprised if other transgender people weren't okay with this solution. I just think many of them haven't thought of it. It requires being able to team up with other minorities, something that often doesn't occur to people who only fit in one minority. Because I've been part of more than one minority at the same time, it's occurred to me that minorities have a better chance of being accommodated if they work together.

There has also been a push to make all public restrooms unisex ... again, the majority are vehemently opposed to such a thing, and justifiably so. This is another case of the tail waging the dog ... or ... "if I'm to be uncomfortable using the restroom .. let's level the field and make everyone uncomfortable."

I'm opposed to that idea too. I'm not into making 1% of the population comfortable at the cost of 99% of the population's discomfort.

How does this coincide with the teacher wearing slacks, like so many other females do? I've already commented that the case would be entirely different by forcing a biological female transgender to wear a dress.

It doesn't necessarily. I'm speaking about transgender people at large.

And if the distinction is so difficult for the average person to immediately make ... it's simply a part of the situation which cannot be avoided, nor is it anyone's fault. If a biological male transgender look so much like a man to everyone already ... wearing a dress isn't going to accomplish anything other than causing people to wonder "why is that man wearing a dress"?

There are a lot of male-to-female transsexuals that successfully pass as women. Many people do not even realize how many trans people there are because many of them pass successfully as male or female.

Now, you are rationalizing to the point of extremes. If wearing slacks is so psychologically damaging to the "female psychi" of the transgendered person ... I suggest that they are extremely troubled, given the fact that most women wear slacks everyday of their lives ... even the ones that choose to wear a dress to work, generally can't wait to get home and put on a pair of jeans. If the only thing that makes a transgender feel fully female is wearing a dress ... I don't believe the dress is the problem.

I wasn't talking about wearing slacks in particular here. I'm just talking about the transgender experience in general and why trans people should be allowed to live as their desired sex. I don't think it's a psychological hardship for a trans person to wear slacks; I know it's a psychological hardship for a trans person to live socially as their biological sex.

I agree ... and I also would note that everyone expresses biases. In this case, you keep returning to the need for the 99% to accommodate the 1%, whereas I'm suggesting that the teacher demanding to be allowed to wear a dress to school isn't even close to meeting the school (or the parents) half way.

Like I said, I agree with you. The only scenario I disagree with you is if there is a dress code for women requiring skirts or dresses only. In all other cases, I find it perfectly reasonable to expect trans teachers to wear slacks.

The biological male or female teacher is just another teacher in the eyes of the students ... and they will either respect the teacher or not, based on the personality and conduct of the teacher. There is no "gender issue" involved. However, in this case, the teacher is not only allowing ... but is perpetuating and injecting her "gender issues" into the equation, and doing so is wrong, because it is detracting from the job of simply being a teacher ... unless of course, the teacher has an undeclared motive and goal to teach off curricula lessons here? This is pretty obvious, don't you think?

If a teacher is obvious about cross-dressing and brings up trans issues all the time, then yes that is what they are doing. If a trans teacher is passing quietly as their intended sex and focusing on the material they are teaching, then that isn't what they are doing.

Of course this is what's happening ... which is why the parents and the school are resisting. Let's face reality and be honest ... the teacher is pushing an agenda, and using the school as her forum for political change. And it's not the appropriate venue for it ... with the primary casualties of her political battle .... the children. And I can think of no better definition of "selfishness".

There are plenty of trans teachers that aren't doing this. They just don't make the news. I disagree with this teacher because she is doing that. I just want to make clear that this teacher is not representative of the trans community as a whole.

It might be a different case if this "teacher" were pushing her personal agenda as a member of some other profession ... say, an attorney. In this scenario, clients would have a choice in deciding if they wanted her representation ... if the Law Practice didn't find her transgender status inconsistent with the image of the firm ... this would keep an adult issue between adults ... while maintaining the element of "choice".

In a school environment ... and particularly younger children ... this is a case of forcing adult issues into the picture ... with no choice available. These children are in school to learn how to read and write and do math ... not be taught the birds and the bees and the in-betweens. Contrary to what some might say ... children don't need to be concerned with, or be burdened with other people's adult gender/sex issues.

I agree with you. Teachers have a responsibility not to bring an agenda into the classroom. This goes for all teachers at large because school is mandatory and there are a wide variety of backgrounds among students, and therefore also a wide variety of cultural values and core values.

I believe your personal bias in this is matter is clouding your otherwise good judgment and intelligent assessments of what constitutes life liberty and the pursuit of happiness ... for all (including the definition of compromise)

We have different perspectives and there's nothing wrong with that. Call it bias if you like, but I personally think "bias" has a negative take on it, and I don't see your difference in perspective as a negative thing.

That said, I don't even think our perspectives are all that different. I pretty much agree with everything you said regarding slacks and this teacher in particular. I am just trying to shed light on what it's like to be transgender, so that the population at large does not equate transgender people with what this teacher did.

That said, I'm happy to agree to disagree wherever we do disagree.

[GuyNTexas]

Originally Posted by nimchimpsky

I was just putting up that warning for other posters.

I know ... I was mocking those that seem to have their eyes glaze over after three sentences.

Originally Posted by nimchimpsky

Thanks for your honesty. I had a feeling that was the case and am glad you can admit it. I do acknowledge the anatomical aspect, but it is a small part of the picture, and it's the part of the picture that most people seem to blow up into everything. Many people think gender is defined by anatomy--and that is simply not always the case. Even biology has shades of gray when hormones, DNA, and secondary sex characteristics are taken into account.

I totally agree. And that's why transgender people cannot be treated like everyone else--because they aren't like everyone else. Transgender people shouldn't be treated better than everyone else, but they should be treated equally. It's akin to providing a blind person with braille, but still expecting them to do the class reading.

No, but if that is how they introduced themselves, I would nod, introduce myself, and move on. I wouldn't feel the need to correct them or "set them straight" or what have you. I think that's the issue here. By enforcing that transgender women not wear a dress, that's an attempt to "set someone else straight" by one's own standards instead of just letting them be.

If you look only at the desires and interests of the teacher, then that is understandable. But there are other interested parties involved than just the teacher ... the school, the students, their parents ... they all have feelings and concerns too ... and right or wrong ... they have a right to have their concerns considered just as much as the teacher. That's really the issue ... does the concerns and rights of the individual outweigh the concerns and the rights of the majority?

Originally Posted by nimchimpsky

You're right--there is a disconnect between the anatomical and the biomechanical. It's scientifically proven. The brains of trasngender people look much more like the brains of the opposite sex, both in terms of hormone levels and relative size of various glands, etc.

I agree and I acknowledge both. To expect transgender people to live just like cisgender people is to ignore the biomechanical reality of transsexuality.

The transgender person is still following all the same social rules as everyone else--the only difference being according to their psychological gender. Cunucu Beach pointed out that the law detailed that transgender people would not have to follow the dress code at all, and that I personally disagree with. Transgender people should still be subject to all aspects of a dress code, the only difference being that they do so based on their gender identity and not their anatomy.

I agree with this. And that is exactly what I am advocating--that they not be required to dress any differently than other females automatically do. If other females automatically wear slacks, so should male-to-female transgender teachers. As I mentioned earlier, the only scenario where I believe a transgender teacher would have to be allowed to wear a dress is if the dress code specified skirts and dresses for female teachers. In that case it is not special treatment, but equal treatment.

This teacher in particular--yes. But there are plenty of transgender people out there that are willing to accommodate others as well.

Well I see we agree .... my comments are specifically addressing this particular teacher ... not what others may or may not be doing.

Originally Posted by nimchimpsky

Just to be clear, I've been speaking beyond this particular case. I am speaking about the transgender community as a whole.

Well, I see that now. I really can't comment on the other .. just this case.

Originally Posted by nimchimpsky

I don't understand how it's a misapplied foundation. Can you explain?

Sure ... lots of people cite individual rights claims, with the obvious reference to constitutional rights. But they misapply those rights to their particular circumstance or situation that have nothing to do with those rights defined. As an example ... the equal protection under the law is often misconstrued to mean equal treatment in every circumstance ... but that's not what the protection means. It means that everyone is subject to the same laws, and if the law says you have a right to a jury trial, that protection applies to everyone ... and cannot exclude someone. It doesn't guarantee "equal" anything else.

One of the biggest illusions ever is the idea of "equal". There is no such thing as equal ... not equal opportunity .. not equal capability ... not equal anything. Life is inherently unequal, as we are all different ... every single one of us ... with different mental abilities, different physical abilities, different talents ... different thoughts ... different motivations and drive ... different work ethic ... even different appearance ... style ... personality ... charisma and even circumstances and available resources. And even if you gave two people who were "relatively equal" in a set of skills and capabilities ... provided each one with the same resources and the identical task ... there would be different outcomes which were not at all equal.

We have this strange idea that everyone can and should be whatever they want to be, and therefore society needs to provide them with the opportunity. But it's not society's responsibility to do that. Some people simply have no business being a brain surgeon .. fact is ... most people shouldn't. The ones that should be ... will find a way to be. You follow me? The trick is not making everything available to everyone, the trick is to teach our children how to identify their individual talents and desires, and how THEY create their own opportunities to demonstrate those talents. That's all ... no guarantees ... no infallible formula ... not society's obligation to deliver the pizza.

In this day and age, we've become so focused on illusions ... like fair and equal ... we now demand that everyone make the team ... no body fails, no one rejected. That's a recipe for having a lousy team ... and that's all we are going to get as a result of such foolish notions. If you aren't good enough .. you don't make it. Go back, work harder, and try again .. or not.

Originally Posted by nimchimpsky

All people need something to give before they can give. A child needs to be loved before they learn to love others. Children need support before they can become supportive parents. You can't ask someone for $100 when they have $0 in their bank account. They need $100 from the get-go so they can then multiply that $100 and give back to society. This applies to humans in general.

Nope. We all have consideration to give, and it doesn't cost a penny ... it's just a matter of willingness. Just like everything else in life ... you give first .. then you get. You get paid on Friday, not Monday. Right?

Originally Posted by nimchimpsky

Accommodating a transgender person's gender identity is no "special treatment". As you stated yourself, transgender people are the anomaly. This is true genetically and so on and so forth, so what may seem "special treatment" is actually just part of the basic needs everyone needs. The fact is that the social structure of gender already accommodates the general population. The general population already has that right as a given. However because transgender people are the anomaly, their baseline needs may seem special and are in fact different, but they are equivalent to the basic needs that are met for the general population as a whole. The fact of the matter is that you, your parents, and every cisgender (non-trans) person already has their needs for expressing their gender identity met. That's already there for you. This is not special treatment for transgender people--it's equal treatment.

You know ... there is an old adage that says the only people that think more about money than rich people ... are the poor people! And I would say the same applies here ... I don't think about expressing my gender identity ... I think about my work .. about my family ... my interests ... my bank account (and how low or high it is at any given moment ) and a multitude of other things.

There is a preoccupation that borders obsession with people who feel and or are different ... always wanting, seeking validation from outside themselves. But the only real, valuable validation comes from within ... and the gender confused are just one example. Name a person who has zero insecurities ... if one says they have none .. they're liars ... either lying to you or to themselves. We all have them, and it's our own cross to bear and learn to work with or through. Placing yourself at the hands and mercy of others is giving way too much power away. Whether you're overweight ... skinny as a rail ... knock dead beautiful .. or not so much ... those who are obsessed with acceptance from others are generally expecting, and sometimes demanding from others what they refuse to give themselves. (Right back to that problem of expecting to get first and then give. That's not the way it works). The moment you accept yourself, you'll see others validating your decision.

Originally Posted by nimchimpsky

That said, I don't even think our perspectives are all that different. I pretty much agree with everything you said regarding slacks and this teacher in particular. I am just trying to shed light on what it's like to be transgender, so that the population at large does not equate transgender people with what this teacher did.

That said, I'm happy to agree to disagree wherever we do disagree.

I cut to this because it's getting late .. and we actually do agree for the most part , and I'm fine with agreeing to disagree ... you have a constitutional right to be wrong

As to the larger questions ... my personal feelings are that I do sympathize and have empathy for others ... their conditions ... circumstances ... etc. At the same time, what I see going on in our country and society is disturbing. So many people have this unrealistic .. idealistic mindset of perfect balance and fairness and equality ... and the only way that will ever be achieved is if we all become clones ... and how boring would that be?

Sometimes we spend so much time focusing on what is wrong, we cannot even appreciate what is right ... and we expend so much energy on what is wrong, we're actually empowering that very condition. And we will always find exactly what we expect to find, good or bad, that's how the universe works. That's why it is so important to realize that the only one standing in your way is you ... no one else. And that is the fundamental flaw in the whole idea of discrimination ... that too is an illusion ... just like fair and equal. It's a trap that robs people of the power to make themselves happy.

[nimchimpsky]

Originally Posted by GuyNTexas

If you look only at the desires and interests of the teacher, then that is understandable. But there are other interested parties involved than just the teacher ... the school, the students, their parents ... they all have feelings and concerns too ... and right or wrong ... they have a right to have their concerns considered just as much as the teacher. That's really the issue ... does the concerns and rights of the individual outweigh the concerns and the rights of the majority?

The school, students, parents already have their feelings and concerns considered, by virtue of the fact that most people identify with them to begin with. I'm speaking for transgender teachers because most people don't understand a transgender person's feelings or desires.

Sure ... lots of people cite individual rights claims, with the obvious reference to constitutional rights. But they misapply those rights to their particular circumstance or situation that have nothing to do with those rights defined. As an example ... the equal protection under the law is often misconstrued to mean equal treatment in every circumstance ... but that's not what the protection means. It means that everyone is subject to the same laws, and if the law says you have a right to a jury trial, that protection applies to everyone ... and cannot exclude someone. It doesn't guarantee "equal" anything else.

One of the biggest illusions ever is the idea of "equal". There is no such thing as equal ... not equal opportunity .. not equal capability ... not equal anything. Life is inherently unequal, as we are all different ... every single one of us ... with different mental abilities, different physical abilities, different talents ... different thoughts ... different motivations and drive ... different work ethic ... even different appearance ... style ... personality ... charisma and even circumstances and available resources. And even if you gave two people who were "relatively equal" in a set of skills and capabilities ... provided each one with the same resources and the identical task ... there would be different outcomes which were not at all equal.

I think you are confusing "equal" and "same" here. People can be different, but in the end, be equal. They don't have to be the same in order to be equal. Yes, we do all have different strengths, weaknesses, abilities and disabilities, but in the end we are equal in our humanity. We are equal just because we are all people. Human value shouldn't just be measured by skill sets or what have you, but just by the fact that we all have the gift of life and are all living on this Earth together.

We have this strange idea that everyone can and should be whatever they want to be, and therefore society needs to provide them with the opportunity. But it's not society's responsibility to do that. Some people simply have no business being a brain surgeon .. fact is ... most people shouldn't. The ones that should be ... will find a way to be. You follow me? The trick is not making everything available to everyone, the trick is to teach our children how to identify their individual talents and desires, and how THEY create their own opportunities to demonstrate those talents. That's all ... no guarantees ... no infallible formula ... not society's obligation to deliver the pizza.

In this day and age, we've become so focused on illusions ... like fair and equal ... we now demand that everyone make the team ... no body fails, no one rejected. That's a recipe for having a lousy team ... and that's all we are going to get as a result of such foolish notions. If you aren't good enough .. you don't make it. Go back, work harder, and try again .. or not.

I agree. I am all for identifying the genius in people and helping them make use of what genius they do have. Trying to squeeze genius out of people where there is none is futile. But everyone has something they're good at (even if it's laying brick) and so anyone can find something they are good at and contribute to society based on the talents they do have.

The discussion about transgender people isn't about talents or skills though. It's just about who people are. It's a different discussion. The blackness or whiteness of a person's skin has nothing to do with their individual skills or talents either. People should be treated differently and individually based on talents, but not based on inherent traits that are beyond their control.

Nope. We all have consideration to give, and it doesn't cost a penny ... it's just a matter of willingness. Just like everything else in life ... you give first .. then you get. You get paid on Friday, not Monday. Right?

How can you give when you have nothing to give? Can you expect a child to start working Monday through Friday from infancy?

You know ... there is an old adage that says the only people that think more about money than rich people ... are the poor people! And I would say the same applies here ... I don't think about expressing my gender identity ... I think about my work .. about my family ... my interests ... my bank account (and how low or high it is at any given moment ) and a multitude of other things.

Transgender people think about everyday things too. Often the only reason trans folks think about their gender identity is because we are so often reminded by other people that we're "not normal" or "different" or "sinful" or "wrong" or "weird" or what have you. If having a non-traditional gender identity weren't so stigmatized in society, then we would rarely if ever think about it.

There is a preoccupation that borders obsession with people who feel and or are different ... always wanting, seeking validation from outside themselves. But the only real, valuable validation comes from within ... and the gender confused are just one example. Name a person who has zero insecurities ... if one says they have none .. they're liars ... either lying to you or to themselves. We all have them, and it's our own cross to bear and learn to work with or through. Placing yourself at the hands and mercy of others is giving way too much power away. Whether you're overweight ... skinny as a rail ... knock dead beautiful .. or not so much ... those who are obsessed with acceptance from others are generally expecting, and sometimes demanding from others what they refuse to give themselves. (Right back to that problem of expecting to get first and then give. That's not the way it works). The moment you accept yourself, you'll see others validating your decision.

Everyone wants validation. You already get validation for being a man, for being whatever else you are. The validation is automatic when you are part of the majority because most people can already relate to your way of being and naturally validate you as a result. When you are in the minority, people question things about you that are normally naturally validated.

Unfortunately self-acceptance does not guarantee other acceptance. I accept my transgender identity and just live as I like. But that doesn't mean that others necessarily do. Many people still do have a problem with the idea of a biological female living as a man, or a biological man dressing as a woman (as evidenced by this thread). If a trans person just wants to be herself and wear a dress, she can go ahead and accept herself and live as she likes. But there will still be plenty of people who don't accept her. Hopefully with time this too will change.

I cut to this because it's getting late .. and we actually do agree for the most part , and I'm fine with agreeing to disagree ... you have a constitutional right to be wrong

As to the larger questions ... my personal feelings are that I do sympathize and have empathy for others ... their conditions ... circumstances ... etc. At the same time, what I see going on in our country and society is disturbing. So many people have this unrealistic .. idealistic mindset of perfect balance and fairness and equality ... and the only way that will ever be achieved is if we all become clones ... and how boring would that be?

Sometimes we spend so much time focusing on what is wrong, we cannot even appreciate what is right ... and we expend so much energy on what is wrong, we're actually empowering that very condition. And we will always find exactly what we expect to find, good or bad, that's how the universe works. That's why it is so important to realize that the only one standing in your way is you ... no one else. And that is the fundamental flaw in the whole idea of discrimination ... that too is an illusion ... just like fair and equal. It's a trap that robs people of the power to make themselves happy.

Again, equality is not sameness. They are two different things. For example, if I put in two hours of work today, two more tomorrow, and two more the next day, I've worked 6 hours. If you put in one today, and three the next day, and two the following day, we've put in the same number of hours--6. But we didn't have the same schedule. Equal, but not the same.

Discrimination is a result of mental constructs, which can be broken down and eliminated. But as long as people hold onto those mental constructs, they make discrimination real. It's the same as with money and value. Money is a mental construct as well. Value is given to things, and value is giving to paper and coins, and as a result, those are used in processes of exchange. But because people give money value, it becomes real. If people did not value paper and coin, then the illusion of money would cease to exist.

[twinArmageddons]

I really don't see the issue with this.

Clothing has always been a ridiculous thing to be held up about anyways.

We allow women to "crossdress" by wearing pants and shirts, why not let men crossdress?

[buddy5]

In this day and age, we've become so focused on illusions ... like fair and equal ... we now demand that everyone make the team ... no body fails, no one rejected. That's a recipe for having a lousy team ... and that's all we are going to get as a result of such foolish notions. If you aren't good enough .. you don't make it. Go back, work harder, and try again .. or not.
[GuyNTexas]



^^^^^These words have much truth in them.^^^^^

They are real life. Political Correctness be DAMNED!!!

[hammertime33]

Therapy to change 'feminine' boy created a troubled man, family says - CNN.com

[jeepgirl27]

Would You Mind IF Your Child's Male Teacher Wore A Dress?

I wouldn't care. He may be a good teacher, just because what he feels in the inside of his gender preference doesn't mean it will harm my child.
We adults judge more than kids do.

[tinman01]

Once again me personally ? I dont think its any of my business to dictate to another how to dress . As long as they are not forcing an agenda on the children or dressing in a provacative manner whats the harm?
I am a Vet. I wear ball caps every where I go that identifies me as a vet. Not because I want or need recognition, because I dont. I wear the hats to honor my service. Should i be denied the right to wear the hat of my choice because 1 or even many are anti-military?
My wife is Thai. I buy a lot of T-shirts when I am in Thailand. Should i be denied the right to wear these T-shirts because some have an issue with Thailand?
If this person wears a dress thats not revealing or overly suggestive whats the harm?
If people would worry about the bigger problems we face everyday maybe, just maybe we would generate some solutions.

[GuyNTexas]

Originally Posted by nimchimpsky

The school, students, parents already have their feelings and concerns considered, by virtue of the fact that most people identify with them to begin with. I'm speaking for transgender teachers because most people don't understand a transgender person's feelings or desires.

You misunderstood my point ... if the parents and the school feel that this male teacher wearing a dress poses an unnecessary distraction, or this behavior is contrary to the religious or moral values which these parents choose to expose their children to .. they have a right to make those determinations. Now the teacher or others can claim those concerns aren't legitimate ... but that is no different than the school and the parents claiming that there is no legitimate need for the teacher to wear a dress.

Originally Posted by nimchimpsky

I think you are confusing "equal" and "same" here. People can be different, but in the end, be equal.

No ... equal means the same.

Websters:
1. Equal

a. the SAME quantity, amount, number as another.

b. like in quality, nature or status.

Originally Posted by nimchimpsky

They don't have to be the same in order to be equal. Yes, we do all have different strengths, weaknesses, abilities and disabilities, but in the end we are equal in our humanity. We are equal just because we are all people. Human value shouldn't just be measured by skill sets or what have you, but just by the fact that we all have the gift of life and are all living on this Earth together.

Value as a human being has nothing to do with this. Your value as a human being doesn't dictate what status, profession, wealth or privileges you might enjoy in this world, else we'd all have equal measures of all of these things. The reality is, we don't, and therefore by definition, we aren't.

Originally Posted by nimchimpsky

I agree. I am all for identifying the genius in people and helping them make use of what genius they do have. Trying to squeeze genius out of people where there is none is futile. But everyone has something they're good at (even if it's laying brick) and so anyone can find something they are good at and contribute to society based on the talents they do have.

Actually, those that "lay brick" have an enormous influence, if you study the history they don't teach you in school. I'm of course referring to the Masons.

Originally Posted by nimchimpsky

The discussion about transgender people isn't about talents or skills though. It's just about who people are. It's a different discussion. The blackness or whiteness of a person's skin has nothing to do with their individual skills or talents either. People should be treated differently and individually based on talents, but not based on inherent traits that are beyond their control.

That's rather idealistic of you .. but again, not even close to reality. One is judged on many things, including traits they have no control over ... particularly insofar as profession is concerned. And traits play a minor role in some instances, while playing a major role in others. Your weight, body structure, height, and visual appeal are THE deciding factors, with no relative value placed on skill or talent if your profession is a Model. The same criteria is quite relevant when evaluating many professional athletes. A TV news anchor ... an actress or actor. And the list is as endless as the varied traits so often associated with any particular profession you might cite. You don't see slightly built Sumo Wrestlers, and you don't see fat bathing suit models on the cover of sports illustrated. These are facts of life ... you can argue whether this is right or wrong, but not that this isn't the reality.

Originally Posted by nimchimpsky

How can you give when you have nothing to give? Can you expect a child to start working Monday through Friday from infancy?

Don't you think you're reaching a bit here? We were talking about adults and about consideration, and about giving if you want to get. If you seek cooperation, you have to be willing to give cooperation. Haven't you ever heard that respect is earned? That suggests you have to give something FIRST before you receive.

Right down to a pizza. You have to make e phone call, and place your order, before the pizza boy knocks on your door.

Originally Posted by nimchimpsky

Transgender people think about everyday things too. Often the only reason trans folks think about their gender identity is because we are so often reminded by other people that we're "not normal" or "different" or "sinful" or "wrong" or "weird" or what have you. If having a non-traditional gender identity weren't so stigmatized in society, then we would rarely if ever think about it.

Everyone wants validation. You already get validation for being a man, for being whatever else you are. The validation is automatic when you are part of the majority because most people can already relate to your way of being and naturally validate you as a result. When you are in the minority, people question things about you that are normally naturally validated.

Come on now ... please ... you're painting yourself in a corner here. I don't receive validation automatically for anything, and neither does anyone else. Validation from others may be pleasant and nice ... but it isn't required, nor is it owed. Frankly, I don't consider anyone's opinion of me as more valid than my own, and I'm my own worst critic .. I know me better than anyone .. particularly amongst relative strangers. Persons so obsessed with this acceptance from others are in a pitiable position, and I really do feel for them. It's a pathetic trap .. like the child who always seeks the approval of a disapproving, impossible to please parent. Society is a poor judge of character ... one look at the filthy no good leaders we have is proof of that. So what's society's opinion really worth? Not very much.

And in this sensitive area ... what you ask for is simply too much for most people to provide ... and I'm not sure that that isn't a good thing. Look, this teacher is a male that by some genetic mishap, created a chemical disconnect between physical anatomy and brain chemistry. That's unfortunate for this person ... and I can see how that could create psychological hardship. But lying about it isn't going to fix this ... that's an illusion and a fraud. I could paint spots on my house cat and call her a leopard, but should I expect all of my visitors to say ooohhhh what a ferocious leopard you have there? Come on ... this person was born a man, with a biochemical female component that makes him feel more like a woman. So OK ... we can agree, he's a transgendered male ... but no .. that's not good enough ... we're asked to agree that he is every bit as much a woman as our mothers were. This is the "validation" being sought ... it's a fraudulent validation, and consequently no validation at all. OK? He's not a woman ... he may feel like one ... he may have some similar biochemistry, but that's where the similarity ends. I could claim to be Shakespear ... and everyone could address me as Mr. Shakespear ... does that make me Shakespear? Of course not ... and calling this teacher Miss Smith doesn't make him a woman. It's just make believe .. and these types of games are best left to children and their imaginary friends.

Originally Posted by nimchimpsky

Unfortunately self-acceptance does not guarantee other acceptance. I accept my transgender identity and just live as I like. But that doesn't mean that others necessarily do. Many people still do have a problem with the idea of a biological female living as a man, or a biological man dressing as a woman (as evidenced by this thread). If a trans person just wants to be herself and wear a dress, she can go ahead and accept herself and live as she likes. But there will still be plenty of people who don't accept her. Hopefully with time this too will change.

Sure, this is true ... people make judgments about a lot of things, and I'd say that not a day goes by that we all don't pass judgment on something or about something. It's what we do ... it's how we make decisions ... we judge, we evaluate, we decide.

Originally Posted by nimchimpsky

Discrimination is a result of mental constructs, which can be broken down and eliminated. But as long as people hold onto those mental constructs, they make discrimination real. It's the same as with money and value. Money is a mental construct as well. Value is given to things, and value is giving to paper and coins, and as a result, those are used in processes of exchange. But because people give money value, it becomes real. If people did not value paper and coin, then the illusion of money would cease to exist.

Perfect timing. I think it's past time to tackle that elephant in the living room here, since I'm myth busting terms like fair and equal ... let's get right to the heart of the matter. "Discrimination" ... that IS the MAIN issue here. And no word has been subjected to more twisting and distortion than this one. Such a valuable quality, much maligned in our modern, Orwellian world of up=down. To most everyone, "discrimination" lands squarely in the negative, just as you've framed it here. But that's a fraud. The facts are, "discriminate" means to: recognize a distinction .. to differentiate .. to distinguish. A person who is said to have very "discriminating taste" for example, denotes a positive quality. It's also an act of careful observation. It is the act of discriminating or distinguishing between good and bad, right and wrong ... desirable and undesirable. And the human race would never have survived if we hadn't learned to descriminate between a poison plant and a healthy one.

All of us discriminate on a daily basis ... if nothing more than to decide whether to have bacon and eggs, or french toast for breakfast. If you choose french toast, does that make you egg-phobic? Or a hater of pigs? This may sound like a ridiculous analogy, but I'm really applying the concept directly as it is applied to human beings and their choices.

When a person is searching for a mate ... it's human nature to discriminate, based on their personal preferences, similar to how we decide between eggs and french toast ... hopefully we put a little more thought behind the decision, though given the divorce rate today, some might argue we don't.

And if I prefer blondes with blue eyes, or brunettes with green eyes .. does that mean I'm wrongfully treating red heads? (Some might say I'm wrongly treating blondes and brunettes ). If I prefer white girls to black or asian girls ... does that make me a racist? If I prefer slender versus thick .. am I wrong? All of this is "discrimination". And it's healthy, and natural, and has been going on since time began.

Females have been selecting mates based on strength, power, position, and health to ensure the fathering of viable offspring and the ability to support and protect them. It's built into the genetic code. They are discriminating.

Now if I have a company of say 100 employees ... I have a responsibility to my company .. in the case of a corporation, it's a legal obligation. So I'm tasked with making the business decsions which are in the best interests of the company .. and that also is in the best interests of my 100 employees too. So when I hire additional employees, I'm going to "discriminate" ... based on my preferences, and the position being filled. If it happens to be a position dealing with the general public ... the last choice on my list is a guy wearing dresses, or a woman with a mustache. OK. Not that they have any less value as human beings than anyone else, but that I don't believe they will present the image I wish to project to the public, because, like it or not ... the public by and large aren't overly excited about dealing with men wearing dresses.

Now that may be bad news for the man in the dress, but that's life. There are 100 other families relying on my judgment to ensure their livelihoods too.

But am I doing anything differently than the woman who is evaluating and discriminating as to the proper selection of the future father of her children? No. It's the same damned process. No apologies owed.