Xray the Enforcer

LGBTQ+ 5 -- Now With More Gender Outlaws

238 posts in this topic

3 hours ago, Xray the Enforcer said:

[mod] We do not tolerate "devil's advocate" posts in this thread regarding LGBTQI+ persons' civil and human rights. Please take that shit elsewhere (e.g. not this board). Regulars, if you see more of that, please report those posts so a mod can address them in a timely manner. Thank you. [/mod]

Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Is it any surprise that the company where the current administration recruits so many personnel from, is the company that comes up with a plan to identify those the administration hates, and disguise it as a measure to increase diversity?

http://amp.timeinc.net/fortune/2017/04/25/goldman-sachs-careers-gay-diversity-lgbt/

Edited by Robin Of House Hill
Omitted word.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see the issue as long as it's optional. I see questions like that on our annual employee opinion surveys - companies like to know how diverse their workforce is so they can boast about it in their PR material.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "prefer not to say" option, raises a flag.

Besides, why is it any business of an employer?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

2 hours ago, Robin Of House Hill said:

The "prefer not to say" option, raises a flag.

Besides, why is it any business of an employer?  

It seems my company has pretty robust support for transitioning on the job. The LGBT HR coordinator put me in touch with a woman who actually only transitioned at work. She role-plays as a man at home to maintain her family dynamics. Which...is not ideal, of course, but it's nice to know there's a lifeline at work if the rest of one's life blows up during a transition...

ETA: But they do have optional designations for orientation and gender options, as well as the ability to tag your corporate profile as an "ally".

Edited by Weeping Sore

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was more concerned specifically about Goldman Sachs, since it is where Trump loves to recruit from.  Providing that kind of company with information that can work against you, seems very risky, to me.

I suppose a company that is progressive and supportive, is a great help.  I originally attempted to transition at work, and while they originally were very supportive, they chickened out 3 weeks before the planned transition date, and fired me.  It forced me to transition, relocate and start from scratch. It worked out better for me, I think.  Does anyone even know how to do that, anymore? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair, Obama recruited a lot from Goldman Sachs too. There's plenty of reasons to dislike the "Vampire Squid" as Matt Taibbi from Rolling Stone calls GS; not sure I'm buying a disingenuous diversity policy as one of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's great that Goldman-Sachs is trying to improve its recruiting pool to specifically include LGBTQ+ individuals. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had laser on my face yesterday. It hurt so bad. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Xray the Enforcer said:

I think it's great that Goldman-Sachs is trying to improve its recruiting pool to specifically include LGBTQ+ individuals. 

Is it wise to accept that is their motive, without proof?

7 hours ago, WinterFox said:

I had laser on my face yesterday. It hurt so bad. :(

I'll say congratulations and also express my sympathy.:mellow:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I do not subscribe to conspiracy theories that do not involve faked Moon landings. So yes, I am fine with Goldman Sachs' explanation. 

I mean, anyone who is going to volunteer their LGBTQ+ status on an employment application is already out of the closet, and if the government decides it wants to round up all teh gheys they will have plenty of other information sources to identify targets. 

Edited by Xray the Enforcer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, WinterFox said:

I had laser on my face yesterday. It hurt so bad. :(

Whenever I have to go through an unpleasant hours-long procedure (in my case, tattoos) I just focus on how awesome it'll look at the end. Good luck with the lasering! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Xray the Enforcer said:

I do not subscribe to conspiracy theories that do not involve faked Moon landings. So yes, I am fine with Goldman Sachs' explanation. 

I mean, anyone who is going to volunteer their LGBTQ+ status on an employment application is already out of the closet, and if the government decides it wants to round up all teh gheys they will have plenty of other information sources to identify targets. 

I think we need to operationally define the phrase, "out of the closet."  In your mind is a fully transitioned trans person who chooses to blend in, and NOT disclose they are trans, in or out of the closet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Robin Of House Hill said:

I think we need to operationally define the phrase, "out of the closet."  In your mind is a fully transitioned trans person who chooses to blend in, and NOT disclose they are trans, in or out of the closet?

I think it's nobody's business other than the individual's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

I think it's nobody's business other than the individual's.

I agree with that.  My question was if a phrase or term is going to be used in a discussion, it helps if we are using it the same way, or at least know how the other is using it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Robin Of House Hill said:

I agree with that.  My question was if a phrase or term is going to be used in a discussion, it helps if we are using it the same way, or at least know how the other is using it.  

Yeah, that's an interesting question. I would have to guess that most fully transitioned trans folks wouldn't consider themselves to be "in the closet" by not disclosing, but that's just speculation on my part. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Yeah, that's an interesting question. I would have to guess that most fully transitioned trans folks wouldn't consider themselves to be "in the closet" by not disclosing, but that's just speculation on my part. 

That's my view, but I've been accused by other trans people of "hiding."  The dominant view in the 70s was blend in, don't disclose, and don't hang out with each other (to lessen the risk of detection), though there was one ominous exception.  We were always told that it was best to disclose to anyone we planned on being intimate with.  It wasn't until the early 90s that some trans people began to reject those ideas.  Now they are all for things like community, visibility, public awareness and education, and activism. A lot of them have disdain for those who have a different point of view.  I used to argue with them, but they have had positive results for some, and I'm old, so why bother.  I'll just do my best to avoid the problems that have been created.

In 40 years, I have never had anything positive come of anyone knowing I was trans, in the real world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Robin Of House Hill said:

I think we need to operationally define the phrase, "out of the closet."  In your mind is a fully transitioned trans person who chooses to blend in, and NOT disclose they are trans, in or out of the closet?

If a person voluntarily discloses on an employment application that they are LGBTQ+, then they are most assuredly out of the closet to their prospective employers. No other scenario to whom they are or are not out (parents, friends, acquaintances, lizard people, etc) applies in this particular instance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, I can agree with that.  The only reason I asked is because I've heard people define it more radically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I originally posted this on Facebook, but pulled it down over a day later, when I realized I had accidentally outed myself to someone on my friends list who was not aware I was trans. (I'm still cursing at myself for that mistake)  Go ahead and laugh, if you must.  This is what I said, followed by the link to which I was referring.

Quote

 

I almost never comment on certain topics, anymore. Unfortunately, I cannot be silent about this. No, Laverne, there is no one right way for people to live their lives, and your implication that those who choose to blend in and preserve their privacy, are "hiding" and "living a lie" is both wrong and harmful.

I've known for forty years, that I have to protect myself from certain people, I should not be forced into a two front war, by you, Laverne.You are perfectly free to live your life as you see fit, but don't you dare denigrate the manner in which others choose to do so. They have as many valid reasons for what they do, as you do.

(I've tightened up the visibility of this post to friends only.)

http://www.elle.com/culture/celebrities/news/a44830/laverne-cox-we-day-speech/

 

Does anyone think her implying that those who prefer to blend in and not disclose, are hiding or living a lie, is justified?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now