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.

 

LGBT activists enraged over beach patrol bathroom email

page: 17
34
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 03:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Annee

Strange.

Maybe it's that impersonalised attitude that is part of the problem then?

Over here if you consent to your medical records being checked also, then they will be in the possession of your boss too.

I worked for huge government organisations in the past and there was something of a HR culture there too which was coldly corporate.


I guess that's why I saw nothing wrong with the way this guy handled things, because he's more like one of the real bosses I have encountered, rather than the plastic ones who couldn't do a thing before parsing it through the HR department.

I take the view we are all more Human than Resource.



ETA would they be expecting to use the changing rooms in the lifeguard stations though?


This really does smack of a storm in a tea cup. I really think this guy is the no nonsense sort of boss who would back any of his people, regardless of their gender identity.

There are some awful people around (Like the Fox guy mentioned earlier) I think it's them who have whipped up so much bad feeling over time that they have sensitised some people into seeing something hateful where it really wasn't intended.

I'm not saying trans people should "suck it up" or anything, I'm merely saying that there are real issues and real people that need sorting out and this guy isn't one. Further more, beating on him means someone far more deserving is getting a free ride right now.

edit on 39pMon, 20 Jun 2016 03:15:39 -050020162016-06-20T03:15:39-05:00kAmerica/Chicago30000000k by SprocketUK because: addendum




posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 03:11 AM
link   
a reply to: SprocketUK



Fair enough. Like I said, it has been my experience that such things are passed along to the person making the decision.

How do you know it wasn't?
In the US there are privacy laws.



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 03:14 AM
link   
FYI (not that it matters to the core subject) the requirements for lifeguards.
Source: my own experience - i worked as a lifeguard, not in the US.

- first aid knowledge. Plus a mandatory 3 day course (paid by the employer) on: CPR (both manually and with defibrillators), wound treatment and basic medical assesment.

- mandatory swimming and water rescue skills ( being able to swim a kilometer in a given time, being able to dive down to 5 meters, retrieving an item on breathhold, being able to pull an full grown adult 500 meters to the shore pick him over the shoulder bring him to the shore and doing cpr (tough one, i tell you)

- a mandatory day course which covers rules of the beach/swimming pool, and how to deal with customers

- relatively clean criminal record (minor stuff like a ticket for speeding was ok)



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 03:16 AM
link   
a reply to: SprocketUK

Making it clear I am no expert in this area.

But, I'm pretty sure what I posted is true.

---------------------------------------------------

So, moved to: friend, relative, partner, etc.



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 03:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: SprocketUK



Fair enough. Like I said, it has been my experience that such things are passed along to the person making the decision.

How do you know it wasn't?
In the US there are privacy laws.


Annee said it wasn't and she worked in HR.

We have privacy laws here too, but they would only be triggered if the interviewer made inappropriate use of such things (Talking about a specific person with someone who did not need to know, for instance).





Annee, I added to my previous post on this.
edit on 39pMon, 20 Jun 2016 03:18:39 -050020162016-06-20T03:18:39-05:00kAmerica/Chicago30000000k by SprocketUK because: addendum



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 03:19 AM
link   
a reply to: SprocketUK
How about if a conservative "news"caster helped to create pointless outrage?
Would that be a good reason to "out" someone?



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 03:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: SprocketUK

Annee, I added to my previous post on this.


I'm done on this line of discussion.

Back to email.

Besides, 3rd season of The Shield is on Netflix.
edit on 20-6-2016 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 03:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Annee

I realise you are good at pointing out poblems. (no judgement here)
If there is a problem, i try to find a solution.

So let's try to focus on that, it might ring some positivity back.

What would your solution to the problem be?



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 03:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: SprocketUK
How about if a conservative "news"caster helped to create pointless outrage?
Would that be a good reason to "out" someone?



You mean "outing" the captain of the life guards?

Even though this has become national news (International, I suppose, since I am talking about it too). Does it not seem as though there was no malice in this guy's email to you? I ask because I genuinely don't see it as malicious or belittling. (I do have to again add the rider that all the actual nasty stuff trans people may have encountered could leave them far more sensitised to such things than others, but again, there are real bad folks that need addressing and while this guy is in the pillory of public opinion, others who are far more deserving, are not).



(Gotta take my dangerous dog out for a while, be back when she is tired and muddy enough).



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 03:33 AM
link   
a reply to: SprocketUK




You mean "outing" the captain of the life guards?
No. I mean outing any transexual who may be on staff.





Does it not seem as though there was no malice in this guy's email to you? I ask because I genuinely don't see it as malicious or belittling.
Malice? No. Belittling? Yes. It trivialized treatment of transexuals.
Inappropriate use of public (meaning local government) resources (meaning email). Yes.

Biased "reportage." Absolutely.

edit on 6/20/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 03:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: svetlana84


What would your solution to the problem be?


What problem?



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 03:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: SprocketUK

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: SprocketUK
How about if a conservative "news"caster helped to create pointless outrage?
Would that be a good reason to "out" someone?



I ask because I genuinely don't see it as malicious or belittling.


The fact neither you or the Captain see what he wrote as belittling - - - is an issue.

Later.
edit on 20-6-2016 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 03:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Annee

All the problems you pointed out.
Start with the one which is most problematic in your views.



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 03:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: SprocketUK

Surely he'd have known, there'd have been some record of a name change and such like.
(I'm assuming because in the UK such a job means a criminal records check which necessitates listing all aliases ).


Let me add a bit of information here addressing these legal questions, at least as far as it goes in parts of the U.S. I say "parts" because it is somewhat of a patchwork of various laws from state to state. Probably the best source of information can be obtained from the Transgender Law Center.

To try to be brief, which is something I need to work on, it is entirely possible there could be a trans person on this guy's staff of 200 and there could be no searchable records they were ever known as someone else. There are transgender kids now in their teens and twenties that had name and birth certificate change and other records sealed when they were children. I'm a person that has changed sex and all that but that was like 43 years ago and nothing about my background or medical status has ever come up when people have looked. I am not "out" about my transsexual medical history and people I've worked with for 30 plus years do not know I was assigned male at birth. I prefer it stays that way and many do.

Mini rant, disclaimer and teaching moment: Just don't ask me to produce a birth certificate though, goddammit! Most states will change a birth certificate with various laws and requirements all across the country. Some require a person provide proof of having undergone sex reassignment surgery. Some states will change a birth certificate with a letter from a doctor that you are being treated for gender dysphoria that don't require SRS. Three states will not change, amend, modify or issue new birth certificates for any reason.

I am from one of them. This is a right I am denied that others have even though I would meet any states most stringent requirements. I changed my name right out of high school when I was 18. That was in 1973. I'm sure if an investigator dug into my past for some reason, I have little doubt someone could put the pieces together but trans children, adolescents and young adults these days can remain invisible which is how it should be for them.

Again though, there are no national laws that govern any of this, it's up to the individual states, but there is such a wide disparity there, it would be nice if there were some universal standards. I am more of an observer of the "transgender community" rather than participant and some of their issues I'm not so on-board with and some of the demands a bit much but there are issues of rights not being equally applied and that irks me and could possibly affect me. /rant

And oh! It is technically illegal for me to take my vajayjay in the women's bathroom in North Carolina because my birth certificate says I'm male. If it wasn't so sad, it would be funny. (I haven't been in a boys/men's bathroom since about 8th grade, 1968/9, and I'm not about to start!)

So, back on topic... With a staff of 200, statistically some of them are going to be gay and probably more aware or sensitive of things that demean the LGBTQIA+xyz umbrella as a whole. Yes, dissent among is rife between the letters. Gays and lesbians, lesbian, gay and transgender people, transgender people and transsexual people really all have little between them other than marginalization as a demographic but also in a way, because of that we kind of have each other's back at times and a certain camaraderie. I would not be surprised if someone from the LGB() community was on Arbin's staff and brought the situation to light. I might have been one to laugh at first but then gone heeeey, that ain't too cool?

I said before, I didn't think the Target comments were that horrible and I appreciate the fact that Arbin said what he said for the sake of humor and levity. Unfortunately, it was insensitive but I'm sure he was clueless that some would think his joke might be. He's been embarrassed and learned a lesson. Let's just let it go.



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 06:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Freija

Ok, I think you cleared a lot of that up nicely. Thanks.

For what it's worth, I am on the side of the humans here, if someone is a female, then they should use the appropriate bathroom, whatever it said on a certificate that predated actual physical changes.



I didn't realise something like a birth certificate could be changed in some states and not others.
I just hope for the sake of others that travel your path that people get over this stuff and things like that change for the better.

Respects.

S



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 07:18 AM
link   
So we're still parsing this over.

Has anyone actually proven that someone was discriminated against?

I have yet to see it. The only contention is that the email went public, but there are also lots of reasons for that happening without anyone on the staff having been actually transsexual.

And, of course, if you listen in on or read correspondence not meant for you, you can find things that are said in ways you won't like because ... it was none of your business to begin with.
edit on 20-6-2016 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 07:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
So we're still parsing this over.

Has anyone actually proven that someone was discriminated against?

I have yet to see it. The only contention is that the email went public, but there are also lots of reasons for that happening without anyone on the staff having been actually transsexual.

And, of course, if you listen in on or read correspondence not meant for you, you can find things that are said in ways you won't like because ... it was none of your business to begin with.


Perhaps you've forgotten what was in the letter sent by the guy in charge of the lifeguard staff:



“WE are NOT Target,” he wrote to the lifeguards. “USE the locker room that corresponds to your DNA…If You’re NOT SURE go to Target.”


So, aside from acting way outside his job description, the implication here is clearly that anyone whose gender "doesn't correspond to their DNA" is not welcome on staff and should go to Target.

Fascinating that you're trying to spin a documented act of discrimination into a "well, it was nobody's business anyway" scenario. I seems that the folks in government at Ocean City Maryland may have a different opinion than you and Butch do, since, well, it's not a private club but a public facility and Maryland has strict laws forbidding discrimination based on gender identity.



edit on 20-6-2016 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 07:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Well, they're not. Presumably, the entire staff knows each other very well so such a policy is unnecessary.

It could also be that the joke was at Target's expense more than any transperson's, but since Target can't get offended and have grievances ... people will get offended on behalf of people who don't work there. I swear SJWs are some of the most humorless people on earth.

Also, I don't know about you, but when I get an internal communication where I work about my job, it is expected to remain so. It is confidential, not intended for the general public. I have to sign papers to this effect every year. If I went around sharing my internal company communications, I would get fired.



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 07:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Gryphon66

Well, they're not. Presumably, the entire staff knows each other very well so such a policy is unnecessary.

It could also be that the joke was at Target's expense more than any transperson's, but since Target can't get offended and have grievances ... people will get offended on behalf of people who don't work there. I swear SJWs are some of the most humorless people on earth.

Also, I don't know about you, but when I get an internal communication where I work about my job, it is expected to remain so. It is confidential, not intended for the general public. I have to sign papers to this effect every year. If I went around sharing my internal company communications, I would get fired.


As usual, you seem to be intentionally missing the point. The lifeguard "captain" issued a formal email that was clearly discriminatory under the laws of Maryland. The fact that you want to make it a joke says a lot about you.

If an internal communication is blatantly illegal there is no right of "confidence" ... and as noted, the city government utterly disagrees with your "position."

You really will go to any extent to justify these kinds of acts, won't you?



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 07:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Freija

I applaud you for your post! It s always the best to hear from an insider.
Most valuable post in this thread.


It seems that even Iran (yes, the evil evil-axis state) is more progressive on the birth certificate matter:



Before the Islamic Revolution in 1979, the issue of transsexuality in Iran had never been officially addressed by the government. Beginning in the mid-1980s, however, transsexual individuals were officially recognized by the government and allowed to undergo sex reassignment surgery. As of 2008, Iran carries out more sex change operations than any other nation in the world except for Thailand. The government provides up to half the cost for those needing financial assistance, and a sex change is recognised on the birth certificate.[1]

Source wikipedia.


With 40 years of experience - can you share more of your experience?
Have you ever had problems so far with using a women bathroom/locker?
Any negative comments on the bathroom topic from either men or women?

I know, this is very private information, so i fully respect if you don't want to share.



new topics

top topics



 
34
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join