School Uniforms hypothetical.

[Oni Koneko Damien]

By the way, this issue isn't one of gender equality at all. Gender equality just means that people should be given the same degree of rights and opportunities, regardless ofgender. It doesn't really mean that we necessarily should treat them as if they're exactly the same in all respects.

There is that little issue of "You cannot discriminate on the basis of race, sex, sexual orientation, religion, etc. etc." You know, that thing that is on pretty much every job application you fill out. The thing that is required in all public restaurants, stores, and what have you.

Requiring someone to wear different clothes on the basis of gender is just as much a case of discrimination as making a black person sit at the back of the bus, making someone remove their Darwin-fish coffee-mug from their cubicle while their neighbor gets to keep their Jesus-fish mug, a manager firing someone because he found out through rumour that he was gay.

Requiring someone to do something based on their race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, etc. *is* discrimination. Requiring someone to wear a skirt, and refusing to allow them to wear the same type of casual slacks that all the males are allowed to wear at a job just because she's a female *is* discrimination.

There's no necessity involved; it comes down to an arbitrary choice by the school/workplace.

And if that company/school/whatever has a legal disclaimer on their job-applications/files that state "This association does not discriminate on the basis of race, sex, etc.", that 'arbitrary' choice is illegal.

[4Tran]

There is that little issue of "You cannot discriminate on the basis of race, sex, sexual orientation, religion, etc. etc." You know, that thing that is on pretty much every job application you fill out. The thing that is required in all public restaurants, stores, and what have you.

"Discrimination" means to give preferential or detrimental treatment. For the purposes of our discussion, skirts and slacks are qualitatively equivalent, so there's no actual discrimination taking place. Ironically, if a girl were allowed to choose either a skirt or slacks, but a boy had to wear slacks, that would technically be discriminatory - the girl gets more choice on the basis of her gender.

Requiring someone to wear different clothes on the basis of gender is just as much a case of discrimination as making a black person sit at the back of the bus, making someone remove their Darwin-fish coffee-mug from their cubicle while their neighbor gets to keep their Jesus-fish mug, a manager firing someone because he found out through rumour that he was gay.

These examples are different from what we've been discussing. In the clothing situation, there isn't any gender discrimination if girls aren't allowed to wear slacks and boys aren't allowed to wear skirts.

[Oni Koneko Damien]

"Discrimination" means to give preferential or detrimental treatment. For the purposes of our discussion, skirts and slacks are qualitatively equivalent, so there's no actual discrimination taking place. Ironically, if a girl were allowed to choose either a skirt or slacks, but a boy had to wear slacks, that would technically be discriminatory - the girl gets more choice on the basis of her gender.

*Any* quantifiable difference in treatment based on gender, race, religion, etc. can be considered 'preferential'. If the mere difference between the Jesus-fish and Darwin-fish designs, which amount to one word and a pair of simplistically scrawled legs on a coffee-cup is sufficient grounds for accusing an employer of discrimination, then forcing people to wear entirely different articles of clothing solely on the basis of gender alone is *more* than enough basis for it.

And for the record, even if I weren't a crossdresser, I'd still support the right for anyone to wear whatever the other gender is allowed to wear on the job, so long as it does not directly interfere with their job functions. In other words, if women can wear skirts, then the men should also be allowed to if they want to.

These examples are different from what we've been discussing. In the clothing situation, there isn't any gender discrimination if girls aren't allowed to wear slacks and boys aren't allowed to wear skirts.

Why not? Just because of your say-so?

There's no racial discrimination if blacks have to sit at the back of the bus, right? Because everyone still gets a seat, right?

I'm sorry, but you're going to have to present more than 'No it isn't!' to refute the point.

[Darth Wong]

OK, what part of "precedent" do you not understand? We have shitloads of precedent for the law permitting certain forms of gender discrimination, such as gender-specific bathrooms and changerooms or gender-specific public clothing restrictions. Deal with it.

[4Tran]

*Any* quantifiable difference in treatment based on gender, race, religion, etc. can be considered 'preferential'. If the mere difference between the Jesus-fish and Darwin-fish designs, which amount to one word and a pair of simplistically scrawled legs on a coffee-cup is sufficient grounds for accusing an employer of discrimination, then forcing people to wear entirely different articles of clothing solely on the basis of gender alone is *more* than enough basis for it.

Please demonstrate how wearing slacks or a skirt as part of a uniform is discriminatory. Note that for work, it's an actual job requirement.

And for the record, even if I weren't a crossdresser, I'd still support the right for anyone to wear whatever the other gender is allowed to wear on the job, so long as it does not directly interfere with their job functions. In other words, if women can wear skirts, then the men should also be allowed to if they want to.

I agree. However, one's apparel can interfere with the vast majority of the jobs out there.

Why not? Just because of your say-so?

Functionally, there's no difference between skirts and slacks.

[Oni Koneko Damien]

OK, what part of "precedent" do you not understand? We have shitloads of precedent for the law permitting certain forms of gender discrimination, such as gender-specific bathrooms and changerooms or gender-specific public clothing restrictions. Deal with it.

Alright, conceded, it's effectively legal discrimination.

Please demonstrate how wearing slacks or a skirt as part of a uniform is discriminatory.

Um, are you blind or something? You are enforcing two separate dress-codes, placing restrictions on what can and can't be worn on the basis of gender alone. This is no different than enforcing two separate eating or seating areas on the basis of race alone, moron. How is that not discrimination?

Note that for work, it's an actual job requirement.

Yes, and that makes it perfectly okay.

No, wait, that has absolutely fuck-all to do with whether or not it's discrimination.

I agree. However, one's apparel can interfere with the vast majority of the jobs out there.

Which is why there are dress-codes in the first place. Guess what: If a guy wearing a skirt can interfere with someone's work, it might *just* be possible that a hot girl wearing a skirt can do the same thing?

On the flip side, do you think that a girl wearing the same casual slacks as a guy would be any more distracting? Why not eliminate the discrimination and simply get rid of skirts altogether?

Functionally, there's no difference between skirts and slacks.

Oh bullshit. Skirts are *designed* to be sexually appealing, slacks aren't. Skirts are designed to expose and emphasize the legs, slacks aren't. There are two reasons skirts are enforced attire for females in the workplace: 1) So that they can be made sexually appealing, which last I checked was *not* a job requirement or stated in the contract for most business-type jobs, or 2) Because it's a holdover tradition from a time, or another business model that followed reason number 1.

Either way, it's discrimination, and if you honestly believe there is no effective difference between skirts and slacks, you're a fucking moron.

[4Tran]

Um, are you blind or something? You are enforcing two separate dress-codes, placing restrictions on what can and can't be worn on the basis of gender alone. This is no different than enforcing two separate eating or seating areas on the basis of race alone, moron. How is that not discrimination?

Because difference alone does not denote discrimination. Let me rephrase my request - how are separate uniforms more of a discriminatory measure than separate washrooms?

No, wait, that has absolutely fuck-all to do with whether or not it's discrimination.

That's good, because that wasn't my point. My actual point is that, on the job, we often have to follow rules that we might otherwise object to.

Oh bullshit. Skirts are *designed* to be sexually appealing, slacks aren't. Skirts are designed to expose and emphasize the legs, slacks aren't. There are two reasons skirts are enforced attire for females in the workplace: 1) So that they can be made sexually appealing, which last I checked was *not* a job requirement or stated in the contract for most business-type jobs, or 2) Because it's a holdover tradition from a time, or another business model that followed reason number 1.

Please stop being so melodramatic. Skirts can be designed to be sexually appealing, but they aren't automatically so. Some skirts are short so as to emphasize the legs, while others are ankle-length, and don't emphasize squat. By the same token, slacks can be tailored to emphasize the hips and buttocks.

[Darth Wong]

Either way, it's discrimination

OMG, stop the presses! You've proven that discrimination of any kind is ... discrimination!

What you've failed to do is show that it should be outlawed. Did you know that employers also discriminate on all kinds of other factors too, such as competence? Intelligence? Appearance? Body Odour? Even personality conflicts with other coworkers? Grow the fuck up and enter the real world, kiddo.

[Oni Koneko Damien]

Because difference alone does not denote discrimination. Let me rephrase my request - how are separate uniforms more of a discriminatory measure than separate washrooms?

Technically they're the same in many ways. The difference is that regardless of whether or not you have shared bathroom facilities, people don't see you in the act of going to the bathroom, so any differences in gender are unobserved anyways. Besides, quite a few workplaces have a unisex washroom without an issue.

The biggest difference is that men and women use the bathroom differently for biological, rather than culturally ingrained reasons. Having a separate facility for each gender has proven to be far more comfortable for all involved.

Clothing, on the other hand, is seen by everyone who works there. There is no valid biological differences between the genders for requiring one to wear slacks and one to wear skirts. Unless it's stated flat out in their contracts that one of their job responsibilities is to look sexy and show off their legs, doing so cannot be said to be a job requirement.

It's discrimination because it is having the woman do more than the men for the same pay. Men are expected to do the work and look professional. Women are expected to do the work, look professional, and show off their legs even if they aren't comfortable doing so.

That's good, because that wasn't my point. My actual point is that, on the job, we often have to follow rules that we might otherwise object to.

I have no problem following rules I'm, at best, ambivalent to. I need the money, I'll conform to my employer's rules so that they see me as someone fit to continue receiving a paycheck.

What I'm objecting to is that the rules that have to be followed are apparently rather different depending on your gender.

Please stop being so melodramatic. Skirts can be designed to be sexually appealing, but they aren't automatically so. Some skirts are short so as to emphasize the legs, while others are ankle-length, and don't emphasize squat. By the same token, slacks can be tailored to emphasize the hips and buttocks.

It doesn't change the main point that the two items of clothing are fundamentally different when there is no valid reason for them to be.

And don't be an idiot, common sense and even rudimentary examination of the average business-casual workplace shows that slacks are required to be professional and skirts are required to be sexually appealing. Just because some cases of one or the other are exceptions to the rule does not prove that the rule isn't valid in a vast majority of cases.

OMG, stop the presses! You've proven that discrimination of any kind is ... discrimination!

Er, yes, I was replying to someone who was trying to claim it wasn't. Normally when you're proving something has a certain attribute to someone who's claiming it isn't, you generally state somewhere in that proof that said object has said attribute, regardless of how self-evident it may be.

What you've failed to do is show that it should be outlawed. Did you know that employers also discriminate on all kinds of other factors too, such as competence? Intelligence? Appearance? Body Odour? Even personality conflicts with other coworkers? Grow the fuck up and enter the real world, kiddo.

Competence, intelligence, appearance, body odour and severe personality conflicts with other coworkers all lead to decreased job performance, profitability, and (in the case of B.O.), a unreasonably shitty work environment.

Somehow, I don't think that women wearing the same pants as men fall into any of those categories.

As to why it should be outlawed, why shouldn't it be? Why should women who are otherwise qualified for the job be forced to wear different outfits than men who DO THE EXACT SAME FUCKING JOB? Even if it isn't intended, making a woman wear a skirt while men who do the same thing wear pants is fucking denigrating, it's saying, "Yes, you do the same work, but since you're female, we're also requiring that you wear sexually suggestive clothes as well".

I don't give a shit if that legal, accepted or 'just the way things are', that's no different than than, say, making a black coworker wear a white suit because he's black, requiring that all openly gay workers wear pink shirts, or forcing a known non-christian to wear a pin that says 'heathen'.

No, I don't think that it's the most horrible problem in the world, but the topic of the thread *is* gender-based differences in uniforms, and ideally there shouldn't be legalized discrimination of that sort.

[Lagmonster]

Competence, intelligence, appearance, body odour and severe personality conflicts with other coworkers all lead to decreased job performance, profitability, and (in the case of B.O.), a unreasonably shitty work environment.

Somehow, I don't think that women wearing the same pants as men fall into any of those categories.

Fashion is critical in profitability and job performance, because people are swayed by and listen to people who display power or sexuality, and as long as people make economically valuable decisions based on traits which have nothing to do with logic or reason the practice will continue.

Watch a CEO walking with his entourage - there is a reason they call them 'power suits'. Their entire outfit is designed to intimidate and awe. A suit's whole purpose is to create an illusion of broad shoulders and a slim waist, characteristics one expects in a sexually dominant male. A woman's high heels and skirt are designed to create an illusion of a taut butt and longer legs, characteristics one expects in a sexually dominant female. And sexually dominant males inspire other people to follow and listen to them even if all their thinking is done for them by casually-dressed guys and girls working for them.

Besides which, even if you made it illegal for businesses to enforce gender-based dress codes, try going to a bar and convincing the waitresses that they should abandon 20% of their tips for the sake of their dignity and wear pants instead of a short skirt. As for companies, hell, Disneyworld would destroy all traces that Cinderella ever existed before they'd put a guy in a princess outfit and parade him in front of their paying customers.

I don't give a shit if that legal, accepted or 'just the way things are', that's no different than than, say, making a black coworker wear a white suit because he's black, requiring that all openly gay workers wear pink shirts, or forcing a known non-christian to wear a pin that says 'heathen'.

Professional dress codes exist to increase profitability or success. There's nothing profitable about labelling gays or blacks or atheists. There IS something profitable to putting a man in a power suit and a woman in a skirt. At which point, and this is the important part, adults can choose not to work for an employer that enforces a dress code they don't like. Women don't have to work for Hooters if they don't want to parade around in a tight top and hot pants. Guys don't have to work at a business if they don't want to wear a tie. And nobody has to work at a theme park if they don't want to dress up like a cartoon character and get kicked by eight-year olds.

[4Tran]

Oni Koneko Damien, so far, I've been talking about "discrimination" in the actionable sense. You've been defining it as "any difference in treatment" - and until you somehow can manage to demonstrate how all differences are harmful, you're effectively equivocating.

Technically they're the same in many ways. The difference is that regardless of whether or not you have shared bathroom facilities, people don't see you in the act of going to the bathroom, so any differences in gender are unobserved anyways. Besides, quite a few workplaces have a unisex washroom without an issue.

The biggest difference is that men and women use the bathroom differently for biological, rather than culturally ingrained reasons. Having a separate facility for each gender has proven to be far more comfortable for all involved.

So are you saying that men should be able to use women's bathrooms if they feel like it?

Clothing, on the other hand, is seen by everyone who works there. There is no valid biological differences between the genders for requiring one to wear slacks and one to wear skirts. Unless it's stated flat out in their contracts that one of their job responsibilities is to look sexy and show off their legs, doing so cannot be said to be a job requirement.

Whether it's a job responsibility should be obvious since we're talking about work uniforms here.

I have no problem following rules I'm, at best, ambivalent to. I need the money, I'll conform to my employer's rules so that they see me as someone fit to continue receiving a paycheck.

What I'm objecting to is that the rules that have to be followed are apparently rather different depending on your gender.

And many other things. This might well be discrimination in the actionable sense in certain cases, but to claim that it is so universally is going to require some sort of proof.

It doesn't change the main point that the two items of clothing are fundamentally different when there is no valid reason for them to be.

And don't be an idiot, common sense and even rudimentary examination of the average business-casual workplace shows that slacks are required to be professional and skirts are required to be sexually appealing. Just because some cases of one or the other are exceptions to the rule does not prove that the rule isn't valid in a vast majority of cases.

You just repeated your claim without either providing any evidence or really addressing my argument. Would you care to explain how skirts can't be professional?

Besides which, even if you made it illegal for businesses to enforce gender-based dress codes, try going to a bar and convincing the waitresses that they should abandon 20% of their tips for the sake of their dignity and wear pants instead of a short skirt. As for companies, hell, Disneyworld would destroy all traces that Cinderella ever existed before they'd put a guy in a princess outfit and parade him in front of their paying customers.

And how would it work for something like a Chinese-themed restaurant where the waiters wear traditional Chinese men's clothing while the waitresses wear traditional Chinese women's clothing?

[TheKwas]

So your dismissing them, and they studies they quote, based on their name alone ?

No, I'm saying that their name indicates that their 'collection of studies' isn't objective and purposly omits research that runs counter to the point they are trying to make.

[Lagmonster]

As an aside, this is the form that all Hooters waitresses have to sign:

Female employees are required to sign that they "acknowledge and affirm" the following:

1. My job duties require I wear the designated Hooters Girl uniform.
2. My job duties require that I interact with and entertain the customers.
3. The Hooters concept is based on female sex appeal and the work environment is one in which joking and sexual innuendo based on female sex appeal is commonplace.
4. I do not find my job duties, uniform requirements, or work environment to be offensive, intimidating, hostile, or unwelcome.

[Lagmonster]

I'm curious as to whether anyone could come up with an example of a legitimate business which forces its employees to wear religiously discriminating clothing, other than, say, aid workers for a missionary organization or the priesthood.