Sex and Satanism at the Denver Airport »« Fischer: Democrats Might Impeach Obama!

Ruse: ENDA = Quotas for Transsexuals!

Austin Ruse of the Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute (C-FAM) has a profoundly silly column in Crisis magazine claiming that if ENDA passes (it won’t, at least not with the House as currently configured) it will lead to quotas for businesses to hire trans* people.

There is a small patchwork of states that have such laws that inevitably harm businesses and religious objectors to the dominant sexual ethos. But these are only states. However, the US Senate yesterday passed something called the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) that will enforce a similar law nationally.

ENDA says any organization with 15 or more employees may not “fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to the compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges or employment or the individual, because of such individual’s actual or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity.”…

Race hustlers everywhere know exactly where this is headed, toward self-imposed quotas by businesses large and small. The only way a business can inoculate itself against charges of discriminatory hiring practices is to hire the aggrieved class no matter what. If pushed by the Justice Department, Hobby Lobby’s only line of defense would be to trot out the transsexuals. They don’t even have to know how to type as long as they have lopped off their penises or at least wear dresses.

Uh, yeah. You know those states you just mentioned that already provide such protections for gender identity and expression, or any of the more than a hundred cities that have them? Can you find a single business in those areas that has set quotas for the hiring of trans* people? Right, I didn’t think so. It might occur to a rational person that this is evidence against one’s prediction, but since Ruse is motivated by bigotry and religious fervor rather than rationality, you’ll be holding your breath a long time for the obvious to occur to him.

And seriously, in a society where a staggering percentage of trans* people have lives filled with discrimination, fear and violence, he’s worried that employers are going to go out of their way to hire them even if they can’t do the job? This is like worrying that businesses are going to start hiring homeless people to be CEO. It’s so far from any conceivable reality that one could only shake one’s head that someone could suggest it with a straight face. And the stupid is still coming:

One of the truly strange things about the gay-rights movement is how free they are with their strangest cousins. You would think that even gay men and lesbians might be rather embarrassed by the T in LGBT. But so bold are they, so fearless, that they now lead with the T. Most Americans are rightly put off by such displays of obvious psychological disturbances.

Again, one has to wonder what reality Ruse lives in. In the actual country we live in, trans* people are still often shunned by mainstream gay rights organizations, pushed into a closet within a closet (thankfully this is slowly starting to change). Trans* people are still angry, as they should be, that the Human Rights Campaign only a couple years ago agreed to remove gender identity and expression from the ENDA bill to help it pass because, while gay and lesbian rights had become somewhat acceptable, trans rights were still too radical to consider.

But you know who is “leading with the T”? The anti-gay bigots. Everywhere around the country that has considered adding sexual orientation and gender expression and identity to their anti-discrimination ordinances over the last few years has seen opponents of that legislation focus almost exclusively on the trans* part of the issue. They know that support for gay and lesbian rights has become mainstream but that there is still a great deal of misunderstanding of, and thus fear to be created about, trans* people. That’s why every one of these cities has seen fliers and door hangers with the exact same picture on it, of a seedy looking guy leering at a little girl going into a public bathroom, with the argument being that these laws will let those weird and dangerous cross-dressers go into womens’ rooms and rape your daughters.

That this has never actually happened is irrelevant, of course; the goal is to push the fear button in people’s brains, which is always easier to do if the object of that fear is someone they do not know or understand. That’s why they focus so obsessively on the T in LGBT, because they know that the vast majority of people now know a gay or lesbian person and it’s much harder to make them fear those people. But the Ts are still a mystery to most people, one that can be turned into a convenient boogeyman. This is classic demagoguery.

Comments

  1. Melvosh says

    Most Americans are rightly put off by such displays of obvious psychological disturbances.

    You know what obvious psychological disturbance I’m put off by? The one that somehow allows supposed Christians to claim they follow the teachings of Jesus Christ, and also allows those same Christians to spout the most vile, bigoted, hateful views I’ve ever encountered. That is truly disturbing.

  2. trucreep says

    @1

    I’ve been pretty surprised by some of the reactions to Pope Francis by people on the right, going as far to say he’s close to heresy. To me, that is exposing these types of people — they’re using religion as a vehicle for their bigotry and hatred. They don’t actually care about the religion, they’re just attracted to the “inclusiveness” of it. “If I’m part of this group I will be rewarded with an eternal life that is filled with only like-minded people.” Their religion is just a way to feel accepted, and that is why they freak out whenever their ability to be bigoted or hateful in a sanctioned way is challenged.

  3. eric says

    The only way a business can inoculate itself against charges of discriminatory hiring practices is to hire the aggrieved class no matter what.

    There is a grain of truth here, in that if a large company has no, none, zero employees of a given significant portion of the population, the DOJ might view that as indirect evidence of hiring discrimination. For example, if Hobby Lobby found itself with zero single women in its 20,000 person workforce, the DOJ might start asking why. And Hobby Lobby might indeed respond to a DOJ inquiry by scrambling to hire single women “no matter what” their qualifications.

    But no company has to resort to token hiring to defend themselves. They could instead, y’know, fix whatever it is about their hiring process that is discriminatory. Seems to me that the only companies that will go the tokenism route are the ones that are actively resisting the notion of changing their general hiring practices.

    In any event, I seriously doubt DOJ would start an investigation into any company on the basis of hiring statistics alone. A far more likely scenario is that they first receive some actual complaint or other evidence of hiring discrimination, and then they start looking into the statistics to see whether they support or undermine the complaint.

  4. busterggi says

    Now if there aren’t enough trans folks to go around will we have to resort to mandatory transing? I’m not exactly great as a guy but I’d make a truly hideous woman.

  5. doublereed says

    I really had no idea that Trans* were discriminated against as harshly as they are until I researched it. It’s frightening and shocking and appalling.

    If you don’t know a trans* person, it’s really difficult to understand what they have to go through on a day to day basis. What they definitely don’t need are a group of bigots making things even more difficult.

    And this is why. I have absolutely no idea what they go through on a day to day basis. It shocks me that people pile on bigotry (and violence) on top of that.

  6. freehand says

    Ruse: There is a small patchwork of states that have such laws that inevitably harm businesses and religious objectors to the dominant sexual ethos

    I wonder if he could name these states, and if so, what the results would be if we compared their economic health with the states Ruse would approve of?

  7. AsqJames says

    @eric,

    There is a grain of truth here, in that if a large company has no, none, zero employees of a given significant portion of the population, the DOJ might view that as indirect evidence of hiring discrimination.

    And yet even if the DOJ did investigate on that basis (which you rightly point out is highly unlikely), there’s a really simple defense: 1) hire applicants based on their qualifications, experience and references; 2) base promotions and pay raises on job performance; 3) keep records (resumes, aptitude tests, references, etc).

    Not only is this a sound defense against being accused based on statistical quirks, it’s also effective against maliciously motivated individuals. As a bonus you’re more likely to hire and promote the best person for the job which is the best way to grow your business and make more money.

  8. magistramarla says

    We just went through all of this nonsense when the city council here in San Antonio passed a non-discrimination ordinance. The fear-mongering here focused on the ladies’ room thing, too.
    I wrote in to the local paper about the fact that I attend a monthly meeting at a restaurant with a nice trans lady and that on more than one occasion, she and I have walked into the ladies’ room at the same time.
    I have never seen anyone have a single problem with her.
    The NDO was passed and the local rightwing was just sure that they would gather enough signatures on a petition to force it to be reconsidered. There was a time limit for this and laughably, they were able to gather less than a third of the needed signatures.
    The NDO is in force and San Antonio has not suffered from any catastrophes. I have some hope for the city becoming more and more tolerant.

  9. dingojack says

    Eric – if a company suddenly hired “single women” (as an example) “no matter what” as a result of a DoJ investigation, then:
    a) They, as you suggested, are simply trying to get around the law
    b) Are drawing attention to the very thing they’re trying to hide (ie they’re idiots)
    c) Are likely to lose out to their more equality-savvy competitors who have hired people based on their skills, competence and general ‘fitness’ for the work at hand in spite of their employees gender, race, sexual orientation* and etc., not because of it**
    Dingo
    ——–
    * Does this moron think that the DoJ is going to mandate that there must be little boxes on all company application forms: ‘are you now, or have you ever been, in transition between one sex and another?’ and ‘are you attracted to men, women or other (fill in details in the box below)’? How could the DoJ know this? (And should they know this?)
    ** ‘The quality of their character, not the colour of their skin’

Leave a Reply