By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Would you hire a transgender if you were the boss of a store?

Frogger on 22 July 2015
Mr.Playstation said:
No, I wouldn't if he/she was an obvious transgender due to a possible hit in sales but the few in real life transgender I've seen have always at least at a first glance looked like the gender they wanted to be so if that's the case and he/she was the most qualified. I would still hire a transgender person.


Like it's been said in this thread, sales are irrelevant in an ethical issue like this. If it's between doing the right thing and doing the wrong thing, you do the right thing. If I took your first sentence, and changed the word transgender to any other monirity, it would come off as extremely discriminatory.

"No, I wouldn't (hire) if he/she was an obvious gay person due to a possible hit in sales but the few in real life gay people I've seen have always at least at a first glance looked straight so if that's the case and he/she was the most qualified. "

"No, I wouldn't (hire)  if he/she was an obvious black person due to a possible hit in sales but the few in real life black people I've seen have always at least at a first glance acted "white" so if that's the case and he/she was the most qualified."

"No, I wouldn't (hire) if she was an obvious woman due to a possible hit in sales but the few in real life women I've seen have always at least at a first glance looked masculine enough so if that's the case and he/she was the most qualified."

"No, I wouldn't (hire) if he/she was an obvious Muslim due to a possible hit in sales but the few in real life Muslims I've seen have always at least at a first glance looked Christian/Jewish so if that's the case and he/she was the most qualified."

Again, these aren't jobs selling sex. These are jobs selling a service. The thread already clarified that the candidate in question is 100% qualified and professional. The literal only reason you'd be not hiring them would be through blatant, unabashed, super discrimination. Abercrombie & Fitch couldn't get away with it when it came to race, and no other company gets to get away with it when it comes to gender.



Around the Network
theprof00 on 22 July 2015
fireburn95 said:


Discrimination against nature vs discrimination against factors you can change however. 

You shouldn't discriminate over someone being born brown, but you can essentially do it over someone with fake red hair color because that was a choice which can be changed, and you might have personal preferences in that case.

I get the ethics behind transgender is that is not a choice, but it is a choice to change gender, not sex, so it wouldnt really apply if someone discriminated on the grounds of appearance of the individual.

How about someone who is obese?



theprof00 on 22 July 2015
fatslob-:O said:
Skullwaker said:

That's not true at all.

The whole meaning of transsexual is someone that doesn't identify with the gender for which they have the organs for. Therefore, they identify with the opposite gender. Aelous' identification is irrelevant in this scenario; only the employee's identification matters.

You can't really tell if someone is a transsexual just by their looks ...

True, and you're also prohibited by law from asking if they are trans, or their religion for that matter.



Mr.Playstation on 22 July 2015
spemanig said:
Mr.Playstation said:
No, I wouldn't if he/she was an obvious transgender due to a possible hit in sales but the few in real life transgender I've seen have always at least at a first glance looked like the gender they wanted to be so if that's the case and he/she was the most qualified. I would still hire a transgender person.


Like it's been said in this thread, sales are irrelevant in an ethical issue like this. If it's between doing the right thing and doing the wrong thing, you do the right thing. If I took your first sentence, and changed the word transgender to any other monirity, it would come off as extremely discriminatory.

"No, I wouldn't (hire) if he/she was an obvious gay person due to a possible hit in sales but the few in real life gay people I've seen have always at least at a first glance looked straight so if that's the case and he/she was the most qualified. "

"No, I wouldn't (hire)  if he/she was an obvious black person due to a possible hit in sales but the few in real life black people I've seen have always at least at a first glance acted "white" so if that's the case and he/she was the most qualified."

"No, I wouldn't (hire) if she was an obvious woman due to a possible hit in sales but the few in real life women I've seen have always at least at a first glance looked masculine enough so if that's the case and he/she was the most qualified."

"No, I wouldn't (hire) if he/she was an obvious Muslim due to a possible hit in sales but the few in real life Muslims I've seen have always at least at a first glance looked Christian/Jewish so if that's the case and he/she was the most qualified."

Again, these aren't jobs selling sex. These are jobs selling a service. The thread already clarified that the candidate in question is 100% qualified and professional. The literal only reason you'd be not hiring them would be through blatant, unabashed, super discrimination. Abercrombie & Fitch couldn't get away with it when it came to race, and no other company gets to get away with it when it comes to gender.

I'm sorry your first sentence already makes your whole post irrelevant. Sales are important. Companies have morals only when they don't hurt their income. The world isn't black and white. Everyone's going to do what's best for them and their family even if it means hurting someone else.

 

Also comparing a Transgender to a gay person, a black person, a woman and a Muslim is horribly discriminatory on your part. Sexuality and gender doesn't have anything to do with a public rapresentitive but image does. You may not like this fact but it's the truth no matter how harsh it sounds.



Send a Friend Request On PSN :P

Conegamer on 22 July 2015

Not everyone is right for every role. That said if it was a promising candidate then sure; person's a person after all. I'm not one to judge and if they do a good job then there's no issues here.



 

Here lies the dearly departed Nintendomination Thread.

Around the Network
Soonerman on 22 July 2015

Only if they're post-op



fireburn95 on 22 July 2015
theprof00 said:
fireburn95 said:


Discrimination against nature vs discrimination against factors you can change however. 

You shouldn't discriminate over someone being born brown, but you can essentially do it over someone with fake red hair color because that was a choice which can be changed, and you might have personal preferences in that case.

I get the ethics behind transgender is that is not a choice, but it is a choice to change gender, not sex, so it wouldnt really apply if someone discriminated on the grounds of appearance of the individual.

How about someone who is obese?


Well there's fat people, and disabled people. If you're thinking about efficiency, you probably wouldn't hire either.

This video might interest you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ARVUy43lOQ

If it came down to 5 equally qualified people, 4 of them were normal sized and a mixture of athletic, and one was obese, then i'd choose one of the 4 out of personal preference, because odds would suggest the fat person is more likely to take days off.

When it comes to work, people have to change themselves a lot of the time for the work, so if the general consensus is people aren't hiring obese people, then a person should try there hardest to lose weight or they are essentially forced to change their career path because it is a competitive jobs market.



Marks on 22 July 2015

If they're the best person for the job then yeah I wouldn't have a problem. But if a CIS white heterosexual male also applies and is more qualified he gets it.



BMaker11 on 22 July 2015

Discriminating, in hiring, based on gender and sexual orientation is illegal in the States. So even if I had a problem with the transgender community, I couldn't not hire one of them, if they're otherwise qualified for the job.

Don't confuse this with "you'd only hire one because you had to". If you're a decent human being and you meet the requirements for the position, I don't care what you identify as.



BMaker11 on 22 July 2015
Mr.Playstation said:
spemanig said:
Mr.Playstation said:
No, I wouldn't if he/she was an obvious transgender due to a possible hit in sales but the few in real life transgender I've seen have always at least at a first glance looked like the gender they wanted to be so if that's the case and he/she was the most qualified. I would still hire a transgender person.


Like it's been said in this thread, sales are irrelevant in an ethical issue like this. If it's between doing the right thing and doing the wrong thing, you do the right thing. If I took your first sentence, and changed the word transgender to any other monirity, it would come off as extremely discriminatory.

"No, I wouldn't (hire) if he/she was an obvious gay person due to a possible hit in sales but the few in real life gay people I've seen have always at least at a first glance looked straight so if that's the case and he/she was the most qualified. "

"No, I wouldn't (hire)  if he/she was an obvious black person due to a possible hit in sales but the few in real life black people I've seen have always at least at a first glance acted "white" so if that's the case and he/she was the most qualified."

"No, I wouldn't (hire) if she was an obvious woman due to a possible hit in sales but the few in real life women I've seen have always at least at a first glance looked masculine enough so if that's the case and he/she was the most qualified."

"No, I wouldn't (hire) if he/she was an obvious Muslim due to a possible hit in sales but the few in real life Muslims I've seen have always at least at a first glance looked Christian/Jewish so if that's the case and he/she was the most qualified."

Again, these aren't jobs selling sex. These are jobs selling a service. The thread already clarified that the candidate in question is 100% qualified and professional. The literal only reason you'd be not hiring them would be through blatant, unabashed, super discrimination. Abercrombie & Fitch couldn't get away with it when it came to race, and no other company gets to get away with it when it comes to gender.

I'm sorry your first sentence already makes your whole post irrelevant. Sales are important. Companies have morals only when they don't hurt their income. The world isn't black and white. Everyone's going to do what's best for them and their family even if it means hurting someone else.

 

Also comparing a Transgender to a gay person, a black person, a woman and a Muslim is horribly discriminatory on your part. Sexuality and gender doesn't have anything to do with a public rapresentitive but image does. You may not like this fact but it's the truth no matter how harsh it sounds.

Remember when Indiana's RFRA law passed and the state went crazy? Then that pizza shop was like "we won't serve gay people". Guess what? They went out of business.

Sales are, indeed, important. And when your company is unethical, you'll lose even more sales than you'd lose because a few people were uncomfortable around a transgender person.