Hiring
This raises an interesting question, at least for me.
At first glance “Nobody should lose their job because they have a ‘gender identity'” seems right, but then second glance isn’t quite so sure.
Having a gender identity=having a very feeble grasp on reality.
In a card shop that probably wouldn’t matter much, but in a lot of other jobs it would. I don’t think employers in general want to hire people who live a fantasy life that’s not tucked safely away in their minds but conspicuously performed all day every day. It says things about their thinking and about how they’re likely to interact with colleagues and the public, doesn’t it? Is it fair to say that?
It’s two things, really, or perhaps more. It’s a glitch in thinking, and it’s a predictor of odd behavior on the job. Both of those are important considerations for most jobs.
Correct me if I’m wrong.
I’d like to hear the employer’s side.
I think it’s like religion: there are best-case scenarios and there are worst-case scenarios and there’s a lot in between. There are people who simply happen to be Muslim, say, and who don’t let that interfere with their jobs — that’s a best case. Then there are people who are Muslim who act on their beliefs in the workplace, by, say, discriminating against women and/or gays and/or Jews and/or atheists.
There are people who identify as transgender but are pretty secular about it. They know what sex they are and aren’t; they know they have an unusual condition; they know they’re simply moving through the world under the superficial appearance of the other sex. I know people like that and I like them. That’s best case.
And of course we know what the worst case trans people are like.
I think the letter of the law should apply to the best case: a gender identity, like a religion, in and of itself is only a label, and although it can and often does lead to bias and to behaviour that’s incompatible with some workplaces, it doesn’t absolutely do so by definition in all workplaces. I guess it’s a matter of drilling down to the most necessary components that go with having a religious identity or a transgender identity, and evaluating whether they disqualify one from any particular job. Kind of like, if you feel you absolutely MUST wear a small metal cross around your neck or a large turban on your head, then you can’t be, say, a firefighter because that would be a hazard and wouldn’t work with your uniform. And if you feel you absolutely MUST use the opposite-sex facililties and be called by opposite-sex pronouns by everyone, colleague and client alike, well, maybe you’re not fit for the job.
So strictly speaking, having a gender identity shouldn’t disqualify anyone. The fundamentals to that are mostly just freedom to style one’s appearance in a cross-sex manner, and freedom to believe in the privacy of one’s mind that they’re the other sex. Pronoun demands and opposite-sex accommodations and such aren’t strictly necessary to having a transgender identity, so they neither confer protection from gender-identity discrimination, nor do they enable gender-identity discrimination in themselves.
There are echoes here of the Muslim conservatives and Islamists who attempted to say that Muslim identity necessitated freedom to discriminate against women versus the liberal Muslims who pushed for a narrow, secular definition of its bounds in law.
I think we’re missing some information here. Did the “girlfriend” have a meltdown when a customer asked for a Mother’s Day card instead of a Birthing Parent’s Day card?
The part that stuck out to me was “I hope he gets some legal advice.” I guess Sarah Phillmore recognizes that the “girlfriend” losing “her” job is actually a guy.
And yeah who knows how this dude is acting. Maybe he’s screaming “call me ma’am!” at all the customers.
@Sumi,
Yes, I wouldn’t remotely be surprised if “because she is trans” is actually a cover for “because he was making unreasonable demands and being disruptive”.
I think in the current climate, in the real world, people have good reason to be wary of hiring someone with a trans identity, unless that someone demonstrates their commitment to a secular workplace before they’re hired.
I’m reminded of debates about Catholics in US Politics. There was much debate about JFK being a Catholic, and whether his religious identity would override his commitment to the constitution — whether he’d be “taking orders from the Pope.” I don’t think those fears were entirely unfounded: the CC really did try to influence Catholic politicians. It did so all the time. Arshbishops and Cardinals have continued to bully Catholic Democrats over abortion and women’s rights, even denying President Biden communion while he was in office.
It was JFK’s famous speech in Houston in 1960, where he publicly vowed not to take orders from the Vatican or to let his Catholic faith interfere with his governance, that changed the calculus in his case.
And yet far more recently, John Kerry had to go the other way — to curry favour with Catholic conservatives for votes by playing middle-ground-ism with respect to abortion rights.
It’s true that jobs and workplaces aren’t the same thing as public office, but the basic principle is the same: they’re secular spaces. And upholding their secularity can get dicey with respect to certain religious, cultural, or other identity groups that have a tendency to bully.
I think a kind of case-by-case wariness is warranted, but that we should be cautious around blanket pronouncements or legal proscriptions. It’s one thing to say, hmm, a specific candidate’s stated Catholic identity might raise some red flags if she’s applying to work at an abortion clinic. It’s within reason to explore the boundaries of that affiliation. It’s another thing to say, “Strictly no Catholics!”
I think it was Kellie Jay-Keen (fka “Posie Parker”) who had begun using rhetoric that veered further than case-by-case wariness into let’s-do-away-with-legal-housing-and-employment-protections territory. I wasn’t keen on that.
hahaha I accidentally spelled it “Arshbishops”.
A typo that actually sounds rather right when spoken out loud. “Arse Bishops.”
Yes. Fair to say.
I think employers who encourage this by providing staff name badges with preferred pronouns (or, even worse, requiring them) are also laying out a particular set of rules of engagement with other staff and patrons, which might not be conducive to workplace morale, or good customer relations. Whether they realize it or not, corporate-sponsored pronoun policies are unavoidably political. They are endorsing a particular view, and announcing that they will enforce it amongst staff, and push it on customers.
When I go into a shop/restaurant/whatever as a customer, I’m not interested in meeting a staff member’s “whole self”(any more than they’re likely to enjoy being pinned behind the cash register as a customer presents their “whole self”, unbidden). I’ll treat whoever serves me with courtesy and respect, but I’m there for the services or products they’re there to provide. I’m not shopping for a life partner. I’m not there to be a political ally or a therapist. That’s not being rude, impersonal, or dehumanizing. It’s being polite. I’ll be friendly, but not necessarily a friend. That might come later, with time and mutual interest, but it’s not likely to happen with instant oversharing, especially if it’s been instigated by corporate headquarters.
.
I remember a post here on B&W of a video from an irate barista who had been “misgendered” by a customer. This guy demanded use of “they/them” pronouns, and was pissed off becauise the customer had referred to “him”. I remember this video because the offended barista had been wearing big, dangly earrings that spelled out “THEY” in big letters, and he shook his head to emphasize this “THEYness” when he recounted the tale of being
misnumberedmisgendered, having apparently used this same head shake to try top get through the customer’s thick skull that the Being before him was a Very Special Person, and it was more important that the customer acknowledge and validate this Specialness, than it was for the barista to shut up “themself” and make the customer’s coffee. Who’s supposed to be serving whom?Hmm. The cynic in me who has seen too many ‘look how they’re oppressing us’ sob stories in which the details don’t quite add up cannot help but wonder why the shop owner, if he really ‘doesn’t like that’, employed a trans in the first place?
Also; working in the local card shop is a ‘dream job’? Somebody needs to dream bigger.