It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Transgender woman wins landmark discrimination case forcing ferry firm to remove the words 'ladies

page: 5
17
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 26 2016 @ 12:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: peppycat

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: peppycat

Sorry, I'm at a loss as to understanding the complaint made.


She was told she couldn't use the Ladies room.

She was told she had to use the toilet for the disabled.

She is not disabled.

Clear enough?

That is clear.
But the word ladies offended her and they are not allowed to use it now.
Crazy enough?


Where did you get that? Does she say she is offended by Ladies?

I think it has more to do with how the law is written.




posted on May, 26 2016 @ 12:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: peppycat

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: peppycat

Sorry, I'm at a loss as to understanding the complaint made.


She was told she couldn't use the Ladies room.

She was told she had to use the toilet for the disabled.

She is not disabled.

Clear enough?

That is clear.
But the word ladies offended her and they are not allowed to use it now.
Crazy enough?


Where did you get that? Does she say she is offended by Ladies?

I think it has more to do with how the law is written.
I'm just curious why the word ladies is being taken down now... was that not because it was found to be a possibly offensive word?
It's been a couple hours since I read the OP, but it was my understanding the word, ladies, will be changed to a person in a dress symbol now and the symbol of pants will be replacing the word, gentleman.



posted on May, 26 2016 @ 12:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: new_here
a reply to: Morrad




The company is now replacing the 'offending' words on its toilet doors and will use gender symbols instead.


Good, will that be XX and XY? Or a drawing of a penis on one door and a vagina on the other?


How are Braille users going to use this now? Didn't know you could spell out symbols in Braille.



posted on May, 26 2016 @ 02:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: Autorico

originally posted by: Specimen
a reply to: snowspirit

What about Swastikas?


I wish the nazis hadn't ruined that symbol, been around a looong time.

Edit: didn't see your 2nd post about it.


It should be reclaimed to mean luck and well being. Allowing the Nazis to own it is from my point of view is giving the Nazi:s power. If you did made it mean good luck well being symbol then you would remove the Nazi using it since you will have changed the intention of the symbol.



posted on May, 26 2016 @ 02:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: WeRpeons
a reply to: Morrad

This transgender thing is really getting ridiculous. I can't believe a judge wouldn't have thrown this case out. Nothing like a minority part of the population deciding for the majority based upon their personal feelings. As a male dressing like a female, doesn't she want to be considered a lady? Why would the word ladies be so offensive? This country is losing it's marbles.





Judicial Activism.



posted on May, 26 2016 @ 02:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Morrad

So 'Ladies" and "Gentlemen" are hate speech?
'

In a way it makes it hard for those that know they are assholes to know where they are supposed to go. It is not inclusive of the assholes and therefore discriminating against assholes.

The solution is to make a snowflake safe space/asshole toilet. Where the both snow flakes and assholes can go and those souls who are both snow flakes and assholes.



Being Transgender and feminist in the middle east. They have real problems of discrimination there but the snowflakes in the west are complaining about not having their bathrooms wanting special treatment not equality with all else. But then snowflakes never was much use to deal with real problems of discrimination. The transgenders and feminists who face real discrimination have my sympathy and I wish them luck and safety on their journey towards equality that all people deserve. Equality not special treatment.

Now this is discrimination:
www.washingtonpost.com... imes/
edit on 26-5-2016 by LittleByLittle because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2016 @ 05:32 AM
link   
If symbols and words are no big deal why are so many people here convinced that changing from words to symbols is going to bring on the apocalypse? I think the company would have handled it just fine without litigation but it didn't go to litigation because the woman was trans. People can be petty regardless of their genitals or gender.

For contrast:

Vic Tanner Davy, chair of Trans* Jersey, said while the group was "pleased" the tribunal had found in favour of a transgender person, the community preferred "the approach of education" rather than "litigation" against employers.


BBC

It seems like every media outlet in the West is scouring the planet for any story, regardless of how tiny, having anything to do with transgendered people. Click bait.
edit on 5/26/2016 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2016 @ 05:54 AM
link   
I read the article and I find myself confused. I see 2 issues here and I don't think they are related.

1. She was told she couldn't use the ladies restroom. That WAS discrimination and she was within the law to sue.

2. The terms used on the actual doors have nothing to do with her discrimination. The lawsuit and subsequent verdict to remove the words on the doors is frivolous. Her complaint wasn't that it said Ladies, it was that she couldn't USE the Ladies room. How did this become intertwined? Had she been told yes then she would have used the Ladies room without question. She asked if she could use it so obviously she didn't have issue with what it said on the door.


Had the symbols been on the door originally when she called they would have still told her the same thing.

How does the new symbol stop the descrimination? If someone is going to say "no, use the disabled bathroom" and be a bigot, the image of a lady vs. the spelling of Ladies isn't going to change that. The door didn't discriminate against her. The idiot she spoke to did.


It seems to taint the actual civil rights victory with with a bit of b.s.
edit on 26-5-2016 by In4ormant because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2016 @ 06:01 AM
link   
a reply to: In4ormant

Glad I'm not the only one who got that out of the article. So many people seem to have missed the line about the room designations being "indirectly discriminatory" to the claimant that I was beginning to wonder if I had made it up all three times I read the article.



posted on May, 26 2016 @ 06:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: In4ormant

Glad I'm not the only one who got that out of the article. So many people seem to have missed the line about the room designations being "indirectly discriminatory" to the claimant that I was beginning to wonder if I had made it up all three times I read the article.


It almost feels like they read the verdict to a completely different lawsuit.



posted on May, 26 2016 @ 06:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: In4ormant

Glad I'm not the only one who got that out of the article. So many people seem to have missed the line about the room designations being "indirectly discriminatory" to the claimant that I was beginning to wonder if I had made it up all three times I read the article.


I also wonder how this comes up in conversation. She identifies as female, she looks female. Why the need for her to say she is transgender can she use the ladies room? Almost feels like baiting.



posted on May, 26 2016 @ 09:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: In4ormant

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: In4ormant

Glad I'm not the only one who got that out of the article. So many people seem to have missed the line about the room designations being "indirectly discriminatory" to the claimant that I was beginning to wonder if I had made it up all three times I read the article.


I also wonder how this comes up in conversation. She identifies as female, she looks female. Why the need for her to say she is transgender can she use the ladies room? Almost feels like baiting.


And if it's baiting, so what.

They were not compliant within the law.



posted on May, 26 2016 @ 09:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: In4ormant

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: In4ormant

Glad I'm not the only one who got that out of the article. So many people seem to have missed the line about the room designations being "indirectly discriminatory" to the claimant that I was beginning to wonder if I had made it up all three times I read the article.


I also wonder how this comes up in conversation. She identifies as female, she looks female. Why the need for her to say she is transgender can she use the ladies room? Almost feels like baiting.


And if it's baiting, so what.

They were not compliant within the law.





it really does figure you would have this kind of attitude. Kind of solidifies all the previous conversations.



posted on May, 26 2016 @ 09:15 AM
link   
and more and more court cases and lawsuits like these will spring up.

people were warned.



posted on May, 26 2016 @ 09:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Annee

Was there a law that said they weren't allowed to put "ladies" on a bathroom door?


edit on 26-5-2016 by In4ormant because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2016 @ 09:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: peppycat

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: peppycat

Sorry, I'm at a loss as to understanding the complaint made.


She was told she couldn't use the Ladies room.

She was told she had to use the toilet for the disabled.

She is not disabled.

Clear enough?

That is clear.
But the word ladies offended her and they are not allowed to use it now.
Crazy enough?


Where did you get that? Does she say she is offended by Ladies?

I think it has more to do with how the law is written.



"She argued the use of words rather than symbols on toilets amounted to indirect discrimination."

I would say she was offended by it if she took them to court and by HER suggestion they removed it.


Defend away



posted on May, 26 2016 @ 09:29 AM
link   
a reply to: In4ormant

I've come across issues like this before. The issue is about discrimination, not about signage. She was told by a company official that she should use the disabled toilets, when in fact she is not disabled.

In giving her that guidance, the company fell foul of the the discrimination laws as in doing so they were applying conditions on her based on her gender identity that are exceptional to any other able bodied customer. That my friends is discrimination.

Its perhaps going overboard to take it to the court its not something I would be inclined to do, however some trans people have experienced more discrimination than I have and are perhaps understandably sensitive.

The company representative made a knee jerk reaction and gave a response to a question that implied discriminatory practices. A better trained operator would probably have been able to deal with the question more tactfully and avoid any offense.



posted on May, 26 2016 @ 09:38 AM
link   
Discrimination laws were introduced in 2015, I suspect Erin Bisson called every company on Jersey until she got that answer to make herself into a agenda darling for 15 minutes.
She called on the phone to ask the question.
What a pathetic performance.

The term ladies has what exactly to do with being told use a disabled toilet?

As a feminist I could find it extremely offensive to identify my sex with a symbol of a dress, now THAT is discrimination.
Wearing a dress is a learned behavior, and a designator of a false femininity and offensive socially constructed gender associations, it is not innate to females to wear dresses.....
SO if they put up a woman assigned a dress symbol, I am afraid I will be left with now alternative other to sue the ferry company for discriminating against me.

If I was a disabled person I would sue Erin Bisson for being humiliated by asking to use disabled facilities, she is a bigot against disabled people. Why is being asked to come into a disabled world would that humiliate you unless you hate my disability and disabled people.

I could go on.

I refuse to support an obvious real life troll.
edit on 26-5-2016 by zazzafrazz because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 26 2016 @ 09:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: redshoes
a reply to: In4ormant

I've come across issues like this before. The issue is about discrimination, not about signage. She was told by a company official that she should use the disabled toilets, when in fact she is not disabled.

In giving her that guidance, the company fell foul of the the discrimination laws as in doing so they were applying conditions on her based on her gender identity that are exceptional to any other able bodied customer. That my friends is discrimination.

Its perhaps going overboard to take it to the court its not something I would be inclined to do, however some trans people have experienced more discrimination than I have and are perhaps understandably sensitive.

The company representative made a knee jerk reaction and gave a response to a question that implied discriminatory practices. A better trained operator would probably have been able to deal with the question more tactfully and avoid any offense.


I agreed and said she was within her rights to sue because she was discriminated against, BY THE EMPLOYEE.

What does this in anyway have to do with the fact the door said "ladies"?

If the employee would have said "sure, use the ladies room" would she have said she felt "ladies" was discriminatory?

She asked if she could use the ladies room, not that the door was discriminating against her.

These 2 issues are completely seperate.



posted on May, 26 2016 @ 09:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: In4ormant

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: In4ormant

Glad I'm not the only one who got that out of the article. So many people seem to have missed the line about the room designations being "indirectly discriminatory" to the claimant that I was beginning to wonder if I had made it up all three times I read the article.


I also wonder how this comes up in conversation. She identifies as female, she looks female. Why the need for her to say she is transgender can she use the ladies room? Almost feels like baiting.


That is what I was thinking, she could have just walked in there, no one would have noticed.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join