Protections for Transgender Workers (Obama to protect trannies)

NY Times ^ | 6/23/09 | Jim Rutenberg

[pissant]

Lawyers for President Obama are quietly drafting first-of-their kind guidelines barring workplace discrimination against transgender federal employees, officials said Tuesday.

The guidelines will be in an updated federal handbook for managers and supervisors to be distributed and posted online in the next couple of months, and they could also be included in other materials for managers. They will list transgender people — those who identify their gender differently from the information on their birth certificates — as among several groups protected by antidiscrimination laws.

Though transgender men and women are not believed to make up more than a fraction of a percent of the federal work force, their inclusion in the discrimination guidelines is seen as a breakthrough by transgender and gay rights advocates.

[Mister Muggles]

Good Lord, that looks like Michael Chiklis in drag!

[brushcop]

You have an excellent profile page, uplifting and thanks! The photo of the ol’ hound next to the little boy praying I carry along with my kids/grandkids photos, when I look at it I smile stupidly and my day goes better for sure.

[FormerACLUmember]

muchas gracias!

[GraceG]

>> So a woman at work would have to worry about a “transgender” male dressed as a female using the same restroom?

Not all Transgenders have had the complete surgeries done.
They go through Hormonal Treatment and Psyche Evaluation before the surgeries are performed from what I understand.

Some choose to live the lifestyle without the hack jobs. <<

Some also choose to be discrete about restroom usage as well even if means climbing extra stairs or inconveniencing themselves over others.

There are some who are actually class acts about it and some who just want to force it on everyone.

The ones who are class acts are usually the ones who may actually have an legitimate issue with their gender, those who force it on everyone are nothing more than demented exhibitionists.

I have personally know both types and can say that a person’s personality whether or not they are a good person goes a long way in how a person is treated.

[Yosemitest]

Let's shine a little wisdom into this abomination.

The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man,
neither shall a man put on a woman's garment:
for all that do so
are abomination unto the LORD thy God.

Now WHY ... would this matter TO GOD?

Well .... let's listen to the scholars of old.

Here are several laws in these verses which seem to stoop very low,
and to take cognizance of things mean and minute.
Men’s laws commonly do not so:
De minimis non curat lex—The law takes no cognizance of little things;

but because God’s providence extends itself to the smallest affairs, his precepts do so,
that even in them
we may be in the fear of the Lord,
as we are under his eye and care.
And yet the significancy and tendency of these statutes, which seem little, are such that,
notwithstanding their minuteness, being fond among the things of God’s law,
which he has written to us,
they are to be accounted great things.
I. The distinction of sexes by the apparel is to be kept up,
for the preservation of our own and our neighbour’s chastity, v. 5.
Nature itself teaches that a difference be made between them in their hair (1 Co. 11:14),
and by the same rule in their clothes, which therefore ought not to be confounded,
either in ordinary wear or occasionally.
To befriend a lawful escape or concealment it may be done,
but whether for sport or in the acting of plays is justly questionable.

1. Some think it refers to the idolatrous custom of the Gentiles:
in the worship of Venus, women appeared in armour,
and men in women’s clothes;
this, as other such superstitious usages, is here said to be an abomination to the Lord.
2. It forbids the confounding of the dispositions and affairs of the sexes:
men must not be effeminate,
nor do the women’s work in the house,
nor must women be viragos, pretend to teach, or usurp authority, 1 Tim. 2:11, 12.

Probably this confounding of garments had been used to gain opportunity of committing uncleanness,
and is therefore forbidden;
for those that would be kept from sin
must keep themselves from all occasions of it and approaches to it.

II. In taking a bird’s-nest, the dam must be let go, v. 6, 7.
The Jews say,
"This is the least of all the commandments of the law of Moses,’’
and yet the same promise is here made to the observance of it
that is made to the keeping of the fifth commandment,
which is one of the greatest,
that it may be well with thee,
and that thou mayest prolong thy days,;
for, as disobedience in a small matter shows a very great contempt of the law,
so obedience in a small matter shows a very great regard to it.
He that let go a bird out of his hand (which was worth two in the bush) purely because God bade him, in that
made it to appear that he esteemed all God’s precepts concerning all things to be right,
and that he could deny himself rather than sin against God.
But doth God take care for birds? 1 Co. 9:9.
Yes, certainly; and perhaps to this law our Saviour alludes. Lu. 12:6,
Are not five sparrows sold for two farthings,
and not one of them is forgotten before God?
This law,
1. Forbids us to be cruel to the brute-creatures,
or to take a pleasure in destroying them. Though God has made us wiser than the fowls of heaven, and given us dominion over them,
yet we must not abuse them nor rule them with rigour.
Let go the dam to breed again;
destroy it not, for a blessing is in it, Isa. 65:8.
2. It teaches us compassion to those of our own kind,
and to abhor the thought of every thing that looks barbarous, and cruel, and ill-natured,
especially towards those of the weaker and tender sex,
which always ought to be treated with the utmost respect,
in consideration of the sorrows wherein they bring forth children.
It is spoken of as an instance of the most inhuman cruelty
that the mother was dashed to pieces upon her children (Hos. 10:14),
and that the women with child were ripped open, Amos 1:13.
3. It further intimates that we must not take advantage against any, from their natural affection
and the tenderness of their disposition, to do them an injury.
The dam could not have been taken
if her concern for her eggs or young (unlike to the ostrich) had not detained her upon the nest
when otherwise she could easily have secured herself by flight.
Now, since it is a thousand pities that she should fare the worse for that which is her praise,
the law takes care that she shall be let go.
The remembrance of this may perhaps, some time or other, keep us from doing a hard or unkind thing
to those whom we have at our mercy.
III. In building a house, care must be taken to make it safe,
that none might receive mischief by falling from it, v. 8.
The roofs of their houses were flat for people to walk on, as appears by many scriptures;
now lest any, through carelessness, should fall off them,
they must compass them with battlements, which (the Jews say) must be three feet and a half high;
if this were not done, and mischief followed,
the owner, by his neglect, brought the guilt of blood upon his house.
See here,
1. How precious men’s lives are to God,
who protects them, not only by his providence, but by his law.
2. How precious, therefore, they ought to be to us,
and what care we should take to prevent hurt from coming to any person.
The Jews say that by the equity of this law
they were obliged (and so are we too) to fence, or remove, every thing by which life may be endangered,
as to cover draw-wells, keep bridges in repair, and the like,
lest, if any perish through our omission, their blood be required at our hand.

IV. Odd mixtures are here forbidden, v. 9, 10.
Much of this we met with before, Lev. 19:19.
There appears not any thing at all of moral evil in these things,
and therefore we now make no conscience of sowing wheat and rye together,
ploughing with horses and oxen together, and of wearing linsey-woolsey garments;
but hereby is forbidden either,
1. A conformity to some idolatrous customs of the heathen.
Or, 2. That which is contrary to the plainness and purity of an Israelite.

They must not gratify their own vanity and curiosity by putting those things together
which the Creator in infinite wisdom had made asunder:
they must not be unequally yoked with unbelievers,
nor mingle themselves with the unclean,
as an ox with an ass.
Nor must their profession and appearance in the world be motley, or party-coloured,
but all of a piece, all of a kind.
V. The law concerning fringes upon their garments,
and memorandums of the commandments, which we had before (Num. 15:38, 39), is here repeated, v. 12.
By these they were distinguished from other people,
so that it might be said, upon the first sight
There goes an Israelite,
which taught them not to be ashamed of their country, nor the peculiarities of their religion,
how much soever their neighbours looked upon them and it with contempt:
and they were also put in mind of the precepts
upon the particular occasions to which they had reference;
and perhaps this law is repeated here
because the precepts immediately foregoing seemed so minute
that they were in danger of being overlooked and forgotten.
The fringes will remind you not to make your garments of linen and woollen, v. 11.

Here is wisdom!

We should avoid Satan's temptations.
These abominable people that call themselves "transgendered"
don't know what fire they're playing in!

[Yosemitest]

On second thought....

The major point from old scholars is probably
as disobedience in a small matter
SHOWS A VERY GREAT CONTEMPT OF THE LAW,
so obedience in a small matter
shows a very great regard to it.

That just about says it all.