Who's a minority in 2009?

[Sky Dancer]

It's likely a spin, welcome to syndicated news. They interviewed two people on the work force who just didn't like the fact that they were different and used that, ignoring the hundreds of other employees who probably didn't give a fuck, just so they can sensationalize it because no one cares about it for any other reason.

Exactly, that's why I consider this a flame thread.

If she hadn't used what passes for a "credible" news source these days, I would agree, but sadly this speaks more volumes about how our national news sources have degraded when they can't make a story without attempting to rile controversy.

If transgendered individuals were accepted in our society, the story would focus more on the real story. The dangers of text messaging while driving.

Transgendered are a hated tiny minority and easy to pick on and sensationalize.

worldnet makes use of this kind of crap every day.

 

[catzmeow]

If transgendered individuals were accepted in our society, the story would focus more on the real story. The dangers of text messaging while driving.

There are two stories. One, that he was texting while driving. Two, that he used his sexual orientation to qualify for preferential treatment during hiring.

Transgendered are a hated tiny minority and easy to pick on and sensationalize.

Irrelevant. I don't hate transgenders, or any other kind of person on the basis of sexual orientation. I do object, however, to having their sexual orientation used to qualify for minority status for hiring.

worldnet makes use of this kind of crap every day.

Another strawman. This is ABC. Try to keep up.

 

[KittenKoder]

Exactly, that's why I consider this a flame thread.

If she hadn't used what passes for a "credible" news source these days, I would agree, but sadly this speaks more volumes about how our national news sources have degraded when they can't make a story without attempting to rile controversy.

If transgendered individuals were accepted in our society, the story would focus more on the real story. The dangers of text messaging while driving.

Transgendered are a hated tiny minority and easy to pick on and sensationalize.

worldnet makes use of this kind of crap every day.

Agreed. WND is the worst offender of sensationalism that I have encountered, using non-issues instead of focusing on the real story. They are, and since the other groups are not truly minorities anymore, they are now going after the smaller groups more. Next they'll target burn victims if they keep up this trend.

 

[Sky Dancer]

If transgendered individuals were accepted in our society, the story would focus more on the real story. The dangers of text messaging while driving.

There are two stories. One, that he was texting while driving. Two, that he used his sexual orientation to qualify for preferential treatment during hiring.

Transgendered are a hated tiny minority and easy to pick on and sensationalize.

Irrelevant. I don't hate transgenders, or any other kind of person on the basis of sexual orientation. I do object, however, to having their sexual orientation used to qualify for minority status for hiring.

worldnet makes use of this kind of crap every day.

The applicant was picked out of a lottery. The story should be about the text messaging NOT the happenstance of him being a FTM transgender.

If you have a problem with the lottery system of hiring, address that, and don't scapegoat transgendered and other minorities for being who they are. Address the process of hiring by lottery.

 

[Ravi]

If she hadn't used what passes for a "credible" news source these days, I would agree, but sadly this speaks more volumes about how our national news sources have degraded when they can't make a story without attempting to rile controversy.

If transgendered individuals were accepted in our society, the story would focus more on the real story. The dangers of text messaging while driving.

Transgendered are a hated tiny minority and easy to pick on and sensationalize.

worldnet makes use of this kind of crap every day.

Agreed. WND is the worst offender of sensationalism that I have encountered, using non-issues instead of focusing on the real story. They are, and since the other groups are not truly minorities anymore, they are now going after the smaller groups more. Next they'll target burn victims if they keep up this trend.

I wonder if they would have mentioned his minority status if he'd applied while he was still a women? Doubtful.

btw, I cannot wait until they start listing the religion of every law breaker...everyone will soon see that most criminals are Christians.

 

[catzmeow]

The applicant was picked out of a lottery. The story should be about the text messaging NOT the happenstance of him being a FTM transgender.

If you have a problem with the lotter system of hiring, address that, and don't scapegoat transgendered and other minorities.

A lottery is only the first step. The lottery determines who is INTERVIEWED. Minority status comes into play at that point. Especially with large city bureaucracies, there is always pressure to comply with federal quotas on hiring. Minorities, of any protected class, have a clear advantage in that hiring process.

That's one issue.

Beyond that, having MTF or FTM surgery is ELECTIVE SURGERY. Making that decision should NOT qualify you for minority status.

 

[catzmeow]

I wonder if they would have mentioned his minority status if he'd applied while he was still a women? Doubtful.

HE WAS THE ONE WHO MADE HIS "MINORITY STATUS" an issue in hiring. Aidan Quinn made this issue relevant.

btw, I cannot wait until they start listing the religion of every law breaker...everyone will soon see that most criminals are Christians.

Can't disagree with you on that. It's not even news.

 

[KittenKoder]

The applicant was picked out of a lottery. The story should be about the text messaging NOT the happenstance of him being a FTM transgender.

If you have a problem with the lotter system of hiring, address that, and don't scapegoat transgendered and other minorities.

A lottery is only the first step. The lottery determines who is INTERVIEWED. Minority status comes into play at that point. Especially with large city bureaucracies, there is always pressure to comply with federal quotas on hiring. Minorities, of any protected class, have a clear advantage in that hiring process.

That's one issue.

Beyond that, having MTF or FTM surgery is ELECTIVE SURGERY. Making that decision should NOT qualify you for minority status.

However, it is in response to a very serious mental issue known as Gender Disphoria. The transgendered get a ton of shit because of them being such a tiny group and so few people ever encounter a real one, and then most don't even realize it unless they pry into their lives. However, in many states you still cannot change the ID after surgery anyway, hell, a straight person getting a name changed just because can be hard in most states, imagine being that different and trying to get name changed AND gender changed.

 

[Sky Dancer]

The applicant was picked out of a lottery. The story should be about the text messaging NOT the happenstance of him being a FTM transgender.

If you have a problem with the lotter system of hiring, address that, and don't scapegoat transgendered and other minorities.

A lottery is only the first step. The lottery determines who is INTERVIEWED. Minority status comes into play at that point. Especially with large city bureaucracies, there is always pressure to comply with federal quotas on hiring. Minorities, of any protected class, have a clear advantage in that hiring process.

That's one issue.

Beyond that, having MTF or FTM surgery is ELECTIVE SURGERY. Making that decision should NOT qualify you for minority status.

Clearly, you do not understand transgendered individuals. It may be considered ELECTIVE SURGERY for insurance purposes, but it is NOT for mental health or quality of life issues elecitive to the transgendered individuals. It's elective in that they are choosing to be whole.

That is completely beside the point. Its the same argument that homosexuals choose or elect to be gay.

You haven't researched this particular individuals hiring enough.

We wouldn't be making that big a deal out of the lottery hiring if the driver had been Jewish or black.

Transgendered are clearly MORE hated than other minorities including gays. You're on a roll with diminishing gay rights issues.

Keep going, you're revealing a good deal about yourself.

 

[Newby]

I think she's (Catz) simply stating that this guy was obviously not qualified for this job, but he got it over other more qualified people b/c of his minority status. I don't understand what's so difficult to understand about that concept? Shouldn't the most qualified applicant for the job be hired regardless of status? If the most qualified applicant had been hired instead of trying to meet quotas, then maybe things such as this wouldn't happen. No one was saying anything with regards to his minority status or that it had any effect on how he performed his job. What's being stated is that the person would not have been hired at all without their minority status. The best qualified person did not get the job.

I wonder if some of you would like a surgeon operating on you that wasn't the most qualified, but got the job b/c they were a minority quota that needed to be filled? If the most qualified is a minority, then great, they should be hired, if they're not then they shouldn't move to the head of the line over more qualified candidates. What Catz is saying, in my opinion, has nothing to do with discrimination, as a matter of fact, it is a clear case of discrimination in favor of the minority, not the other way around.

I also agree that transgender shouldn't be a 'minority'. If they don't speak about it, who would know anyway?

 

[Ravi]

I can't imagine which minority group one would belong to that would make that person most likely to text while driving.

 

[KittenKoder]

I think she's (Catz) simply stating that this guy was obviously not qualified for this job, but he got it over other more qualified people b/c of his minority status. I don't understand what's so difficult to understand about that concept? Shouldn't the most qualified applicant for the job be hired regardless of status? If the most qualified applicant had been hired instead of trying to meet quotas, then maybe things such as this wouldn't happen. No one was saying anything with regards to his minority status or that it had any effect on how he performed his job. What's being stated is that the person would not have been hired at all without thier minority status. The best qualified person did not get the job.

I wonder if some of you would like a surgeon operating on you that wasn't the most qualified, but got the job b/c they were a minority quota that needed to be filled? If the most qualified is a minority, then great, they should be hired, if they're not then they shouldn't move to the head of the line over more qualified candidates. What Catz is saying, in my opinion, has nothing to do with discrimination, as a matter of fact, it is a clear case of discrimination in favor of the minority, not the other way around.

They have no evidence of such, none, just some other people, not even the organization in charge or anyone willing to say they are officially connected. So ... it's quite obvious that the issue only exists in the heads of a few who don't care about the real story, facts, or problem.

 

[Newby]

I can't imagine which minority group one would belong to that would make that person most likely to text while driving.

If the issue was about that, you might have a point. You're completely clueless as to what is being discussed.

 

[KittenKoder]

I can't imagine which minority group one would belong to that would make that person most likely to text while driving.

Technically it's not even driving, it's pulling a lever or pushing a button to go forward or backward, not hard. The only skill the job even requires is the ability to see. LOL

 

[Ravi]

I can't imagine which minority group one would belong to that would make that person most likely to text while driving.

If the issue was about that, you might have a point. You're completely clueless as to what is being discussed.

That is the issue, dimwit. Texting is what caused the crash.

 

[Newby]

I think she's (Catz) simply stating that this guy was obviously not qualified for this job, but he got it over other more qualified people b/c of his minority status. I don't understand what's so difficult to understand about that concept? Shouldn't the most qualified applicant for the job be hired regardless of status? If the most qualified applicant had been hired instead of trying to meet quotas, then maybe things such as this wouldn't happen. No one was saying anything with regards to his minority status or that it had any effect on how he performed his job. What's being stated is that the person would not have been hired at all without thier minority status. The best qualified person did not get the job.

I wonder if some of you would like a surgeon operating on you that wasn't the most qualified, but got the job b/c they were a minority quota that needed to be filled? If the most qualified is a minority, then great, they should be hired, if they're not then they shouldn't move to the head of the line over more qualified candidates. What Catz is saying, in my opinion, has nothing to do with discrimination, as a matter of fact, it is a clear case of discrimination in favor of the minority, not the other way around.

They have no evidence of such, none, just some other people, not even the organization in charge or anyone willing to say they are officially connected. So ... it's quite obvious that the issue only exists in the heads of a few who don't care about the real story, facts, or problem.

If that's the case, then why bother having anyone check any box on an application at all? All companies are forced to hire a certain percentage of minorities regardless of their ability or qualifications for the positions, and government is most definitely hiring minorities over other non-minority applicants, even tho the non-minority applicant may be more qualified. To say that it doesn't happen is denying the obvious.

Why would this person reveal their minority status to begin with if they didn't think it would help them get the job? If they thought the opposite, that it would keep them from getting a job, then they wouldn't have checked the box to begin with. Why did they hire someone to drive a trolley that had a bad driving record?

 

[KittenKoder]

I think she's (Catz) simply stating that this guy was obviously not qualified for this job, but he got it over other more qualified people b/c of his minority status. I don't understand what's so difficult to understand about that concept? Shouldn't the most qualified applicant for the job be hired regardless of status? If the most qualified applicant had been hired instead of trying to meet quotas, then maybe things such as this wouldn't happen. No one was saying anything with regards to his minority status or that it had any effect on how he performed his job. What's being stated is that the person would not have been hired at all without thier minority status. The best qualified person did not get the job.

I wonder if some of you would like a surgeon operating on you that wasn't the most qualified, but got the job b/c they were a minority quota that needed to be filled? If the most qualified is a minority, then great, they should be hired, if they're not then they shouldn't move to the head of the line over more qualified candidates. What Catz is saying, in my opinion, has nothing to do with discrimination, as a matter of fact, it is a clear case of discrimination in favor of the minority, not the other way around.

They have no evidence of such, none, just some other people, not even the organization in charge or anyone willing to say they are officially connected. So ... it's quite obvious that the issue only exists in the heads of a few who don't care about the real story, facts, or problem.

If that's the case, then why bother having anyone check any box on an application at all? All companies are forced to hire a certain percentage of minorities regardless of their ability or qualifications for the positions, and government is most definitely hiring minorities over other non-minority applicants, even tho the non-minority applicant may be more qualified. To say that it doesn't happen is denying the obvious.

Why would this person reveal their minority status to begin with if they didn't think it would help them get the job? If they thought the opposite, that it would keep them from getting a job, then they wouldn't have checked the box to begin with. Why did they hire someone to drive a trolley that had a bad driving record?

You are clueless aren't you. They have only M and F boxes, and that's all they are allowed to ask by federal law. However, your birth certificate can be required, and some places do, and your state ID is required, as well as you SS card but that doesn't have gender on it. The gender inconsistencies have to be explained by the applicant only when they fill out the paper work, but they MUST be explained. Simply put, the TG status would have been known at the time the paper work was completely regardless. Also, only one state has a law about TG's, it's Washington state, where I live, and it does not force them to be hired nor does it give minority status. What is says is that they are to be treated as the diagnosed gender they associate with, period.

 

[Newby]

They have no evidence of such, none, just some other people, not even the organization in charge or anyone willing to say they are officially connected. So ... it's quite obvious that the issue only exists in the heads of a few who don't care about the real story, facts, or problem.

If that's the case, then why bother having anyone check any box on an application at all? All companies are forced to hire a certain percentage of minorities regardless of their ability or qualifications for the positions, and government is most definitely hiring minorities over other non-minority applicants, even tho the non-minority applicant may be more qualified. To say that it doesn't happen is denying the obvious.

Why would this person reveal their minority status to begin with if they didn't think it would help them get the job? If they thought the opposite, that it would keep them from getting a job, then they wouldn't have checked the box to begin with. Why did they hire someone to drive a trolley that had a bad driving record?

You are clueless aren't you. They have only M and F boxes, and that's all they are allowed to ask by federal law. However, your birth certificate can be required, and some places do, and your state ID is required, as well as you SS card but that doesn't have gender on it. The gender inconsistencies have to be explained by the applicant only when they fill out the paper work, but they MUST be explained. Simply put, the TG status would have been known at the time the paper work was completely regardless. Also, only one state has a law about TG's, it's Washington state, where I live, and it does not force them to be hired nor does it give minority status. What is says is that they are to be treated as the diagnosed gender they associate with, period.

Every application that I've ever filled out asked your ethnicity, every single one. Also, if they had the gender surgery, one would assume that they had all of their official documents updated as well, except perhaps your birth certificate, which I've never had to show when getting employment.

And there was no reason for the insult. I've agreed and disagreed with you, and I've never berated your opinion on anything.

 

[Sky Dancer]

I think she's (Catz) simply stating that this guy was obviously not qualified for this job, but he got it over other more qualified people b/c of his minority status. I don't understand what's so difficult to understand about that concept? Shouldn't the most qualified applicant for the job be hired regardless of status? If the most qualified applicant had been hired instead of trying to meet quotas, then maybe things such as this wouldn't happen. No one was saying anything with regards to his minority status or that it had any effect on how he performed his job. What's being stated is that the person would not have been hired at all without their minority status. The best qualified person did not get the job.

I wonder if some of you would like a surgeon operating on you that wasn't the most qualified, but got the job b/c they were a minority quota that needed to be filled? If the most qualified is a minority, then great, they should be hired, if they're not then they shouldn't move to the head of the line over more qualified candidates. What Catz is saying, in my opinion, has nothing to do with discrimination, as a matter of fact, it is a clear case of discrimination in favor of the minority, not the other way around.

I also agree that transgender shouldn't be a 'minority'. If they don't speak about it, who would know anyway?

Transgendered individuals are a minority. Some can 'pass' as male or female and many cannot--and are look transgendered. "Passing" as the preferred gender, color, sexual orientation, creed or ethnicity has long been controversial. (funny, you don't look Jewish!) I'm sure if this individual FTM transgender had lied on her application and listed 'male' and was hired, then the implication would be that transgendered people cannot be trusted because they lie. If you don't like trannies and want to bash them that would works. Implie that the individual did not meet competitive hiring standards due to the happenstance of being transgendered.

This real story is about the dangers of driving while text messaging. Some people like titilating sensationalism and divisive politics, and to that extent that extrapolate that this story is about preferential treatment.

This candidate was in a lottery. Race, gender and ethnicity is often screened in hirng these days. I assume this candidate was interviewed and selected on the basis of his merits as a superior candidate for the position in 2004.

If not, then the story should be about the poor hiring practices of the transit authority. For all those transit workers who work without crashing their trains I'm sure that would be another inflammatory, divisive story.

But some folks would rather pick out the salient detail of the transgendered status and make cracks about the possible funcitoning of a transgendered individuals gonads.

 

[KittenKoder]

If that's the case, then why bother having anyone check any box on an application at all? All companies are forced to hire a certain percentage of minorities regardless of their ability or qualifications for the positions, and government is most definitely hiring minorities over other non-minority applicants, even tho the non-minority applicant may be more qualified. To say that it doesn't happen is denying the obvious.

Why would this person reveal their minority status to begin with if they didn't think it would help them get the job? If they thought the opposite, that it would keep them from getting a job, then they wouldn't have checked the box to begin with. Why did they hire someone to drive a trolley that had a bad driving record?

You are clueless aren't you. They have only M and F boxes, and that's all they are allowed to ask by federal law. However, your birth certificate can be required, and some places do, and your state ID is required, as well as you SS card but that doesn't have gender on it. The gender inconsistencies have to be explained by the applicant only when they fill out the paper work, but they MUST be explained. Simply put, the TG status would have been known at the time the paper work was completely regardless. Also, only one state has a law about TG's, it's Washington state, where I live, and it does not force them to be hired nor does it give minority status. What is says is that they are to be treated as the diagnosed gender they associate with, period.

Every application that I've ever filled out asked your ethnicity, every single one. Also, if they had the gender surgery, one would assume that they had all of their official documents updated as well, except perhaps your birth certificate, which I've never had to show when getting employment.

And there was no reason for the insult. I've agreed and disagreed with you, and I've never berated your opinion on anything.

Okay, then you are naive, sorry. But no, it does not count as ethnicity, that's completely unrelated. Also, official documents are not "just updated", it takes years to get even a small change completed and even then, there is always a record of what it said before, you can't just erase the past and thus the reason why it's hard. Too many people were evading the law by changing their names in the system that they made it almost impossible. In most states you have to put an ad in the local newspapers announcing a name change for a month before they will let you, then in all you have to go through court to get it done (marriage is by default done through the court). I had to have my BC for some jobs, high paying management, and for many I had to submit to a credit check, which also keeps the gender on record (for some reason) as well as any criminal record. Fed employees have almost the exact same requirements, and public servants do and should have those requirements. As I said, they got an interview with two people who just happened to not like the person who was a moron and crashed a trolly, ignoring all the other "cources" just because they didn't sensationalize the story. ABC didn't even have the decency to get a full report and comment from the company that did the hiring. They had to use some unnamed source, why? Because there isn't a story there, it's faux hype.