New York Times suggests that companies other than the New York Times hire transgender workers

“The Struggle for Fairness for Transgender Workers” is an article by the New York Times editorial board, which has chosen not to hire any transgender workers, about how other employers should be forced to hire such workers. It is unclear why the business folks at the Times haven’t been attracted by the opportunity to profit by hiring workers that no other employers (because of their deep-seated prejudices that the non-transgendered staff at the NYT has ferreted out) are willing to hire. If the Times is correct one would think that a business with a 100% transgender workforce would have remarkably low labor costs.

Related:

11 thoughts on “New York Times suggests that companies other than the New York Times hire transgender workers

  1. Now that victory has been won in World War G(ay), we move on to World War T (ransexual). It’s great fun being an iconoclast and smashing prejudices, but there is a problem with diminishing returns. Civil rights have been won for women (1/2 the population) and blacks ( 1/8) and gays ( 1/32). Transgender is less than 1/256. Who comes next after victory is declared in World War T? Bill Maher had an editorial in yesterday’s NY Times advocating for equal rights for chickens (complaining that Costco eggs come from chickens kept in slave labor conditions).

    By the way, gays have received such publicity that the average person vastly overestimates their numbers. In surveys, when Americans are asked to estimate the percentage of population that is gay, they estimate it to be 1 in 4.

  2. “…the New York Times editorial board, which has chosen not to hire any transgender workers”

    Does this mean that there are no such workers on the editorial board, or at the New York Times? If the latter, how is it known?

  3. Steve: How do we know that http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/opinion/editorialboard.html doesn’t have any transgender members? The same way that if you are at a party with 1000 people you can find out which one is a pilot: “He’ll tell you.” Somehow I don’t think that any of these folks, if they had formerly been of another sex or if they were currently experiencing gender dysphoria, would miss their chance to join Caitlyn Jenner in the spotlight.

  4. Phil,

    Here in Virginia our public schools are certainly doing their part in trying to bring equanimity to the transgender set…even our 7th graders will get a class on the plight of folks who aren’t sure which sex they oughta be/become.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/school-board-approves-adding-transgender-issues-to-the-classroom/2015/06/26/d484c7c2-1c14-11e5-93b7-5eddc056ad8a_story.html

    I’m hoping in the near future tall folks (that category includes me) will get our comeuppance from the liberal media, since it’s well known that we feel out of place and very nervous in a crowd of average height people.
    It’s all so unfair!

  5. “Somehow I don’t think that any of these folks, if they had formerly been of another sex or if they were currently experiencing gender dysphoria, would miss their chance to join Caitlyn Jenner in the spotlight.”

    That’s a pretty ugly opinion to express, Phil. I know a few transgender folk and most of them have no interest making the details of their gender public. Public figures like Caitlyn Jenner are never going to be able to transition without it being a public spectacle, so they make the best of it and speak out about transgender rights. Most trans folk though consider it a very private matter and often go to great lengths to “pass” and not call attention to themselves.

  6. Anders: By your standards I guess we could assume that 100% of the NYT workforce is transgender, including the members of the editorial board. They are all keeping it private and “passing.” But if you don’t agree with the 100% transgender figure, perhaps you could say, based on the pictures and biographies presented in http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/opinion/editorialboard.html , which specific members you believe are most likely to be transgender.

  7. Izzie L.,

    > Civil rights have been won for women (1/2 the population) and blacks (
    > 1/8) and gays ( 1/32). Transgender is less than 1/256. Who comes next
    > after victory is declared in World War T?

    The returns diminish if indeed civil rights are the object to be
    attained on behalf of these victim categories hitherto cruelly
    denied them.

    I think there is another and paramount priority: to exult in victory
    when one of the enemy (usually a white male) gets what’s coming to
    him. From this point of view, an exotic variety of designated victims
    is an advantage since some incautious Whitey is more likely to get
    caught failing to show the required obeisance.

  8. By my standards? All I stated is that most transgender people, like most of the general population, don’t actually want every aspect of their private lives, particularly ones that are very personal and not well accepted by society, to be a public spectacle.

    Any of those people on the editorial board absolutely *could* be transgender. I don’t know, I can’t say based on looking at their photos and bios. I also can’t tell if any of them have ever had a miscarriage or erectile dysfunction or experimented with cocaine. Can you? How does that work? But ultimately, none of those things are any of my business or yours.

  9. Anders: If it is nearly always impossible to say who is transgendered, how does it make sense to adopt the new laws and regulations that the New York Times advocates? Consider Serge Schemann, shown with a beard in http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/opinion/editorialboard.html and described as being “married and has three children.” According to you, there is a substantial probability that “he” was born a “she” and has been quietly passing as a man. If he/she gets fired by the NYT he/she will be able to sue under the new laws, but there is no way that the NYT could have known he/she was originally a she because the transgendered are not in any way distinguishable from the non-transgendered.

    In other words, how can it make sense to have a law giving special legal privileges to Class X when there is no way for anyone to tell who is a member of Class X?

  10. I’m not a lawyer or a policy maker so I can’t say how the law would or should be enforced. I imagine it would work like any other laws against discriminating against people based on sexual orientation or religious affiliation (two other things that you can’t just tell by looking at someone).

    As for someone married with children, yes, they could be transgender. How do I know they don’t secretly identify as a woman and have just never been able to come out and live publicly that way? I’m not saying “high probability” or even “substantial probability” but “non-zero probability” combined with it being none of my business.

    I actually really don’t care about the makeup of the editorial board. It’s small enough that it’s reasonably likely that none of them are transgender. If they don’t have transgender friendly policies in place (I have no idea if they do or don’t) but are arguing that others should, then that would make them hypocritical, and they should be called out on it.

    What I took issue with was your comment “Somehow I don’t think that any of these folks, if they had formerly been of another sex or if they were currently experiencing gender dysphoria, would miss their chance to join Caitlyn Jenner in the spotlight.”, which strongly implies that you believe that transgender people are just attention seekers all waiting for their big moment to make a spectacle of themselves.

Comments are closed.