Trump wants to pretend that transgendered folks don't exist

[TSwizzle]

Why do we need a legal definition of gender?

Well how else would the California legislature be sure that California companies have women board members ?

I really hate that initiative, and think it will backfire spectacularly if it manages to actually become law.

I thought Moonbeam already signed it into law.

 

[Politesse]

I really hate that initiative, and think it will backfire spectacularly if it manages to actually become law.

I thought Moonbeam already signed it into law.

It remains to be seen whether it will survive legal challenge.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I really hate that initiative, and think it will backfire spectacularly if it manages to actually become law.

I thought Moonbeam already signed it into law.

It remains to be seen whether it will survive legal challenge.

We have a similar law in Ontario that I keep having to deal with on behalf of my employer, called the "Pay Equity Act" and it goes back twenty years. The law says that women's work (yes, "women's work", not women) must be paid at least as much as men's work. They don't care about individual women being paid as much as men for the same job. They actually make you categorize jobs as "womens work" or "mens work". They also don't care if men's work doesn't get paid as much as women's work in an organization. It is completely one way.

The result is that you play with your definitions and monkey with the date until the government bureaucrats go away, and nobody, woman or man, actually gets helped in the end.

 

[Arctish]

And then you have to argue with the deliberately obtuse who claim that by specifying gender based discrimination, the proposed legislation is horribly discriminatory against people who face other kinds of discrimination or no discrimination but who'd feel left out if the legislation didn't mention them specifically.

Why go through all those identity politics when you could simply ban discrimination not based on merit or based on characteristics not essential to a judgement?

Because the world is full of people like a certain relative of mine who believes that women are without merit except as incubators for babies, preferably sons. He has repeatedly equated women with animals, and likes to use the Old Testament as 'proof' that women should be submissive and silent.

He'd be on board with making everything merit based so long as you use his methods for determining merit. So would a lot of Bible thumpers.

Is it less wrong to discriminate against an individual for their outward gender appearance than to discriminate against them for their chromosomes?

For that matter, is it less wrong to discriminate against an individual for being a redhead or having green eyes than to discriminate against them based on race or gender?

No, and no. Which is why, if I found out that redheads were being singled out for discrimination I would support legislation that made it illegal to discriminate based on hair color. That doesn't mean I'd be okay with discrimination based on some other characteristic.

Tell me something, Jolly. There's a town here in Alaska that had a lot of absquatulation related crumbing. Some citizens thought it was enough of a problem that they proposed a change in the city code to address it. Would you have supported their initiative?

 

[ZiprHead]

It remains to be seen whether it will survive legal challenge.

We have a similar law in Ontario that I keep having to deal with on behalf of my employer, called the "Pay Equity Act" and it goes back twenty years. The law says that women's work (yes, "women's work", not women) must be paid at least as much as men's work. They don't care about individual women being paid as much as men for the same job. They actually make you categorize jobs as "womens work" or "mens work". They also don't care if men's work doesn't get paid as much as women's work in an organization. It is completely one way.

The result is that you play with your definitions and monkey with the date until the government bureaucrats go away, and nobody, woman or man, actually gets helped in the end.

I just did a quick perusal of the law you just spoke about. I see no instances of the phrases "womens work" or "mens work" that you say are in there. Perhaps you can point them out for us all to see. linky

 

[repoman]

So lame,

Some men (higher percentage than women) do jobs that are destructive and wearing on their bodies and get well compensated for it.

On the other hand, in the medical/social welfare there are a lot of women whose jobs are corrosive to their mental health and they are around people with lots of communicable diseases.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

There's a town here in Alaska that had a lot of absquatulation related crumbing. Some citizens thought it was enough of a problem that they proposed a change in the city code to address it. Would you have supported their initiative?

I don't know what that is or what their initiative was, so I can't answer your question.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

It remains to be seen whether it will survive legal challenge.

We have a similar law in Ontario that I keep having to deal with on behalf of my employer, called the "Pay Equity Act" and it goes back twenty years. The law says that women's work (yes, "women's work", not women) must be paid at least as much as men's work. They don't care about individual women being paid as much as men for the same job. They actually make you categorize jobs as "womens work" or "mens work". They also don't care if men's work doesn't get paid as much as women's work in an organization. It is completely one way.

The result is that you play with your definitions and monkey with the date until the government bureaucrats go away, and nobody, woman or man, actually gets helped in the end.

I just did a quick perusal of the law you just spoke about. I see no instances of the phrases "womens work" or "mens work" that you say are in there. Perhaps you can point them out for us all to see. linky

To see what they task you with, go here: http://www.payequity.gov.on.ca/en/Monitoring/Pages/monitoring_program.aspx

Determine job classes, including gender and job rate of job classes.

Determine the value of job classes based on legislative requirements of skill, effort, responsibility and working conditions using a gender neutral comparison tool.

Conduct job comparison for all female job classes using job-to-job and/or proportional value method of comparison.

Identify and adjust the compensation of underpaid female job classes so that they are paid at least as much as an equal or comparable male job class or classes. All retroactive payment must include interest.

Provide payroll summary and proof of payment as required.

Here they say "female job classes" and not "women's work". Does that make this more palatable? If so, why?

Note how this isn't about fair treatment towards individual women. You can have a woman in a "male job class" who is paid less than her male peer doing the exact same job, and this doesn't help her. It only tasks you with declaring what jobs are male and what jobs are female and making sure the female jobs (which could be filled by men) are paid at least as much, not equal, to the male jobs. This law doesn't do anything about male jobs getting paid less than female jobs. It is decidedly sexist in multiple ways.

 

[repoman]

So if a man has a job that is physically demanding and can only be done for 20 years should they get the same payment as a woman (or man) in a non physically demanding job who can work for 35 years?

Why the government interference?

 

[ZiprHead]

I just did a quick perusal of the law you just spoke about. I see no instances of the phrases "womens work" or "mens work" that you say are in there. Perhaps you can point them out for us all to see. linky

To see what they task you with, go here: http://www.payequity.gov.on.ca/en/Monitoring/Pages/monitoring_program.aspx

Determine job classes, including gender and job rate of job classes.

Determine the value of job classes based on legislative requirements of skill, effort, responsibility and working conditions using a gender neutral comparison tool.

Conduct job comparison for all female job classes using job-to-job and/or proportional value method of comparison.

Identify and adjust the compensation of underpaid female job classes so that they are paid at least as much as an equal or comparable male job class or classes. All retroactive payment must include interest.

Provide payroll summary and proof of payment as required.

Here they say "female job classes" and not "women's work". Does that make this more palatable? If so, why?

Note how this isn't about fair treatment towards individual women. You can have a woman in a "male job class" who is paid less than her male peer doing the exact same job, and this doesn't help her. It only tasks you with declaring what jobs are male and what jobs are female and making sure the female jobs (which could be filled by men) are paid at least as much, not equal, to the male jobs. This law doesn't do anything about male jobs getting paid less than female jobs. It is decidedly sexist in multiple ways.

You could have just said "Sorry, I was wrong." But, hey, goalposts and all.

 

[Arctish]

There's a town here in Alaska that had a lot of absquatulation related crumbing. Some citizens thought it was enough of a problem that they proposed a change in the city code to address it. Would you have supported their initiative?

I don't know what that is or what their initiative was, so I can't answer your question.

My point exactly.

Before you can address a problem you have to first identify it. If you need others to help you address it, you have to show that the problem exists. If you want to address the problem through policies and legislation you have to be very specific about what it is, why it's a problem, and what you propose to do about it.

If the problem you think needs addressing is some kind of socially harmful discrimination, as opposed to socially beneficial or socially inconsequential discrimination, you have to call it that. If the problem is socially harmful discrimination based on gender, you have to call it harmful gender discrimination. Otherwise people won't know what you're talking about, why you think it's a problem, or whether they want to support your proposed solution.

 

[Jarhyn]

What legislation are you even thinking about here, specifically?

I'm waiting for Jimmy or anyone else to answer that same question. What laws specifically do we need legal definitions of gender for? The only reason I can think of requiring that is to discriminate against people. I'd rather not do so.

The only reason I can think of would be to explicitly enumerate another group for which the default position of neutrality must be closely monitored to ensure it is upheld, as people are irrrationally prone to violating neutrality WRT it.