Who's a minority in 2009?

[Zoom-boing]

Anyone who texts while driving should be taken out and shot, regardless of what's between their legs.

 

[Sky Dancer]

This is off topic, but it's a funny true story. When I was born, the hospital posted my gender incorrectly as male. My father told me that on the way up to see my mom he asked an orderly if he had a boy or a girl and the orderly read the chart as 'male'. He starts passing out cigars and then goes up to see my mom and me and sees I'm girl. My parents, (having a wicked sense of humor), thought it was funny, (or no big deal).

They split up early in my life, and neither of them was functional enough to get my birth certificate changed.

When I appled for a passport to travel out of the country, I had a real problem because my birth certificate said 'male' and I am a woman. I had to PROVE I'm a woman. I'm laughing at the application counter asking, "what kind of proof do you need?"

If you think the bureaucracy is bad, consider the work I went to to get my birth certificate changed. All this inconvenience because people these days, (those goddamn trannies) change genders.

I had to find my mother, (another long story), and get her to write a statement testifying that she had given birth to a girl, on Nov 24th, me.

I got the passport in the nick of time to travel--by two days! The tickets and tour were planned.

 

[Ravi]

Well, this is curiouser and curiouser. According to the Boston Herald, Quinn applied as a female and is still listed as a female.

Registry of Motor Vehicles records show Aiden Quinn, who was behind the wheel of a Green Line train that rear-ended another train at Government Center Friday, was formerly known as Georgia Quinn but changed his name on his license in April. He is also registered to vote in Dorchester under the name Aiden Carter Quinn but his gender is listed as “female,” records show.
T spokesman Joe Pesaturo said Quinn entered the T lottery for the motorman position in 2004 under the name Georgia Quinn but was hired in July 2007 as Aiden Quinn and has used that name ever since.

Driver applied for job under different name - BostonHerald.com

It definitely sounds like ABC is making a flame.

 

[Zoom-boing]

This is off topic, but it's a funny true story. When I was born, the hospital posted my gender incorrectly as male. My parents, having a wicked sense of humor, thought it was funny.

They split up early in my life, and neither of them was functional enough to get my birth certificate changed.

When I appled for a passport to travel out of the country, I had a real problem because my birth certificate said 'male' and I am a woman.

If you think the bureaucracy is bad, consider the work I went to to get it changed. All because these days, people do change genders.

I had to find my mother, (another long story), and get her to sign a notarized affidavit that she had given birth to a girl on my birthdate.

I got the passport in the nick of time to travel--by two days! The tickets and tour were planned.

After my daughter was born and we got the bill from the hospital, there was a charge for $300 for a circumcision. Double-checking -- it's a good thing.

 

[KittenKoder]

Well, this is curiouser and curiouser. According to the Boston Herald, Quinn applied as a female and is still listed as a female.

Registry of Motor Vehicles records show Aiden Quinn, who was behind the wheel of a Green Line train that rear-ended another train at Government Center Friday, was formerly known as Georgia Quinn but changed his name on his license in April. He is also registered to vote in Dorchester under the name Aiden Carter Quinn but his gender is listed as “female,” records show.
T spokesman Joe Pesaturo said Quinn entered the T lottery for the motorman position in 2004 under the name Georgia Quinn but was hired in July 2007 as Aiden Quinn and has used that name ever since.

Driver applied for job under different name - BostonHerald.com

It definitely sounds like ABC is making a flame.

Boston Herald could get more reliable sources, since they are on location instead of "twittering".

 

[KittenKoder]

This is off topic, but it's a funny true story. When I was born, the hospital posted my gender incorrectly as male. My parents, having a wicked sense of humor, thought it was funny.

They split up early in my life, and neither of them was functional enough to get my birth certificate changed.

When I appled for a passport to travel out of the country, I had a real problem because my birth certificate said 'male' and I am a woman.

If you think the bureaucracy is bad, consider the work I went to to get it changed. All because these days, people do change genders.

I had to find my mother, (another long story), and get her to sign a notarized affidavit that she had given birth to a girl on my birthdate.

I got the passport in the nick of time to travel--by two days! The tickets and tour were planned.

After my daughter was born and we got the bill from the hospital, there was a charge for $300 for a circumcision. Double-checking -- it's a good thing.

That was probably the hospital trying to cheat you.

 

[sealybobo]

Bah! I thought this was actually going to be hard hitting news. Simple solution, people need to stop treating people different so they can't get special treatment.

Did you guys see the Daily Show last night at 8pm? Probably a repeat from last week. The black guy had 10 white kids in a classroom and he asked them if 2050 was a special year to them. They said no, and he said, "that's the year estimated when whites become the minority"

Whites to become minority in U.S. by 2050 | U.S. | Reuters

And it did not scare the kids.

 

[catzmeow]

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.

I understand ALL of this. I fail to see why this should qualify them for minority preferences in hiring for a job. This isn't hard, Sky.

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

No, it isn't. I also don't believe that sexual orientation should be a factor considered in employment, either pro or con.

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

I would, if he'd gotten the job because he were jewish, black, giving the director a blowjob, or any other of a thousand reasons that someone is given an inappropriate preference.

You're on a roll with diminishing gay rights issues.

If giving gay people preferential treatment during hiring is a "gay issue," then well-done me.

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

Yes, I'm a huge bigot. I don't think that race, gender, or sexual orientation should play ANY ROLE AT ALL during hiring.

Gosh. I'm evil. Thanks for finally proving it.

 

[KittenKoder]

Bah! I thought this was actually going to be hard hitting news. Simple solution, people need to stop treating people different so they can't get special treatment.

Did you guys see the Daily Show last night at 8pm? Probably a repeat from last week. The black guy had 10 white kids in a classroom and he asked them if 2050 was a special year to them. They said no, and he said, "that's the year estimated when whites become the minority"

Whites to become minority in U.S. by 2050 | U.S. | Reuters

And it did not scare the kids.

All the more reason why the "majority" should really want to start treating people with more equality instead of making a big deal out of their differences. Just focusing on the stories and real issues helps.

 

[catzmeow]

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

No, the issue is in classifying a transgendered individual as a minority for hiring purposes. That's new. Texting while driving kills teenagers all the time in my neck of the woods (we have a lot of trees).

 

[catzmeow]

All the more reason why the "majority" should really want to start treating people with more equality instead of making a big deal out of their differences. Just focusing on the stories and real issues helps.

Equality, yes. Preference, no.

 

[WillowTree]

Get this...the guy who injured 46 people and caused 9.5 million in damages in Boston last week while texting on the job used his transgendered status to qualify as a "minority" for hiring purposes.

Texting Trolley Driver Is Transgendered Male - ABC News

It's a crazy world we live in, y'all.

thanks librals..

 

[KittenKoder]

All the more reason why the "majority" should really want to start treating people with more equality instead of making a big deal out of their differences. Just focusing on the stories and real issues helps.

Equality, yes. Preference, no.

So far though, the only laws in effect state that they aren't suppose to be treated differently. The laws in my state and Arizona do not even allow employers to ask those questions until after they are hired. There may be a few states with a "minority quota" but I haven't done the hiring for any businesses in those states. There are however tax breaks they can get for hiring more minorities, though wrong, it would also mean making corporations pay more taxes if you remove those laws.

 

[Zoom-boing]

After my daughter was born and we got the bill from the hospital, there was a charge for $300 for a circumcision. Double-checking -- it's a good thing.

That was probably the hospital trying to cheat you.

No doubt. I may have had 'new-mom-tired-fuzzy-headed' syndrome but no way were they going to get an extra $300 out of me!

 

[Sky Dancer]

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.

I understand ALL of this. I fail to see why this should qualify them for minority preferences in hiring for a job. This isn't hard, Sky.

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

No, it isn't. I also don't believe that sexual orientation should be a factor considered in employment, either pro or con.



I would, if he'd gotten the job because he were jewish, black, giving the director a blowjob, or any other of a thousand reasons that someone is given an inappropriate preference.

You're on a roll with diminishing gay rights issues.

If giving gay people preferential treatment during hiring is a "gay issue," then well-done me.

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

Yes, I'm a huge bigot. I don't think that race, gender, or sexual orientation should play ANY ROLE AT ALL during hiring.

Gosh. I'm evil. Thanks for finally proving it.

I didn't say you were a huge bigot, or evil. Apparently, these are what come to your mind when I say your treatment of this story about the text messaging accident reveals a great deal about you. I haven't said what I feel it reveals, have I?

You're an idealist, if you think that race, creed and ethnicity no longer play a role in hiring. They shouldn't, but they do. Discrimination still exists. The treatment of this story proves it. We're making the whole story that should be about how text messaging is dangerous when driving all about some faux outrage that this individual was given preferential treatment in hiring. He wasn't. He was selected from a lottery, and competed competitively for it.

You have not proved your point, that his transgendered status was the cause for his hiring.

What do you care what I think this stance reveals about you? You selected the story and chose to be outraged about the happenstance of the driver being transgendered and you have made up and not proved he was selected over other candidates preferentially. This is mere speculation.

I can imagine what you would have done if the candidate lied and got the job based on looking male, instead of telling the truth about the transgendered status, and his imagined preferential hiring.

More inflammatory outrage, I'd imagine.

You are on a roll, with you agenda to diminish the civil rights work of the Matthew Shepard Act, which would otherwise eliminate gays, lesbians and transgendered individuals from hate crime law protected status--which means less funds available to prosecute these kinds of hate crimes.

It's quite revealing, IMO.

 

[Newby]

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.

It's possible that it went down as you are assuming it did, on the other hand, I can see Catz's argument as well. Whether it happened in this particular incident remains to be seen, both sides of this issue are assuming things. I'm not familiar with all of the legal nuances of being trans gender and whether or not they are legally compelled to give that information when seeking employment, so I can't really comment on it any further. My backing up of Catz's opinion was based on less qualified people being hired for a position because of some minority status, I just think if that process hasn't been stopped, then it should be. It should be about the most qualified person for the job, period.

 

[catzmeow]

So far though, the only laws in effect state that they aren't suppose to be treated differently. The laws in my state and Arizona do not even allow employers to ask those questions until after they are hired. There may be a few states with a "minority quota" but I haven't done the hiring for any businesses in those states. There are however tax breaks they can get for hiring more minorities, though wrong, it would also mean making corporations pay more taxes if you remove those laws.

This is not precisely true. Governmental organizations (such as the Boston Transit Authority) OFTEN use minority quotas in the hiring process, particularly local units of government. They are required to report to the federal government on their percentage of minority hires if they receive federal dollars (such as transportation dollars). They have a strong incentive to hire minorities over qualified white workers.

I'm not saying it to be inflammatory, but it is a matter of fact.

 

[Newby]

So far though, the only laws in effect state that they aren't suppose to be treated differently. The laws in my state and Arizona do not even allow employers to ask those questions until after they are hired. There may be a few states with a "minority quota" but I haven't done the hiring for any businesses in those states. There are however tax breaks they can get for hiring more minorities, though wrong, it would also mean making corporations pay more taxes if you remove those laws.

This is not precisely true. Governmental organizations (such as the Boston Transit Authority) OFTEN use minority quotas in the hiring process, particularly local units of government. They are required to report to the federal government on their percentage of minority hires if they receive federal dollars (such as transportation dollars). They have a strong incentive to hire minorities over qualified white workers.

I'm not saying it to be inflammatory, but it is a matter of fact.

Absolutely. That was my point when I made my original comment. I know that my brother-in-law and his wife put their business in her name because they would be competing for government contracts/work and minority owned businesses are given an advantage over others when it comes to handing out the contracts. It happens all the time, and it's just as much discrimination as anything else.

 

[catzmeow]

I didn't say you were a huge bigot, or evil. Apparently, these are what come to your mind when I say your treatment of this story about the text messaging accident reveals a great deal about you. I haven't said what I feel it reveals, have I?

YOu don't have the guts to say what you think it reveals, but you made your implication quite clear. You're a passive-aggressive bitch (as opposed to straight out aggressive bitches like me).

I'd respect you more if you had the guts to lay it on the line, instead of dancing around insults and then pretending that butter wouldn't melt in your mouth because you're such a sweet innocent.

You're an idealist, if you think that race, creed and ethnicity no longer play a role in hiring.

No. I said they SHOULD NOT. And, we have laws in place to protect people when discrimination occurs, and those laws should be aggressively enforced.

They shouldn't, but they do. Discrimination still exists.

Quite clearly discrimination exists when a person's minority status gives them an edge in the hiring process. THAT is discrimination.

The treatment of this story proves it. We're making the whole story that should be about how text messaging is dangerous when driving all about some faux outrage that this individual was given preferential treatment in hiring. He wasn't. He was selected from a lottery, and competed competitively for it.

Not true. The lottery draws people for INTERVIEWS. His application made it clear that he was a minority, he was quite vocal about it, and he met a quota for the agency. HE made his minority status an issue.

What do you care what I think this stance reveals about you?

Why would you ever think I did care what you think? I like beating your ass in argumentation. Your position is weak.

I can imagine what you would have done if the candidate lied and got the job based on looking male, instead of telling the truth about the transgendered status.

I don't think that gender should ever play a role in hiring decisions. I feel very strongly about this, as a woman who has worked in a overwhelmingly male field for the past 19 years. No person should ever get a job based upon being male. They should get a job based upon their merits and qualifications (this is why I also support women being able to serve in combat roles and why I don't support don't ask/don't tell). Gender or sexual orientation should not be an issue, and there should be aggressive enforcement of such.

You are on a roll, with you agenda to diminish the civil rights work of the Matthew Shepard Act, which would otherwise eliminate gays, lesbians and transgendered individuals from hate crime law protected status--which means less funds available to prosecute these kinds of hate crimes.

I don't consider violent hate crimes more impactful to victims than any other kind of violent crime. I'm oddly consistent in that regard. I don't believe that a violent gang crime is less fear-inducing than a hate crime. I believe in true equality in government policies.

The difference between us is that you SAY you want equality, but what you really want is preferential treatment. I say I want equality--and mean it.

 

[catzmeow]

Absolutely. That was my point when I made my original comment. I know that my brother-in-law and his wife put their business in her name because they would be competing for government contracts/work and minority owned businesses are given an advantage over others when it comes to handing out the contracts. It happens all the time, and it's just as much discrimination as anything else.

That's it, exactly. Preferences and quotas ARE discrimination. There is no way to justify them, without embracing discrimination. And they have longterm ramifications that are extremely negative.

I have a good friend who is Latino. He receive a national award as a grad student that came with a significant financial reward. He received it not because he was Latino, but because he was an exemplary scholar. And yet, in the minds of many of his peers, that was handed to him because of his skin color. That's what racial preferences (and gender and sexual orientation preferences). They support and extend bias.

They do more damage, in the long run. And, they're racist.

As a non-racist, I cannot possibly support them. Race SHOULD NOT BE A FACTOR. Gender SHOULD NOT BE A FACTOR. Extending these practices to encompass sexual orientation is simply bad politics.

And, it will have longterm negative results that exceed the discrimination that it is designed to address.