|
identity cards, antioch, transsexuals, crossdresser, travestie, escort post op transsexual, redundancy, transsexual breast enlargers, hayward, feminine image, political islam, activism, transsexual sex women, legislation, gay studs, activity, tgconnect, gay & lesbian, glamour glam hair ornaments tiara tiaras accessories pendants pendant, brazilian transsexuals, valentine, two,
|
Refusing to allow employers to discriminate against dresses transsexuals who dress and maintain an outward appearance that is inconsistent with their anatomical sex would seem to be a logical consequence of the Price Waterhouse decision. If a female employee cannot be punished for not being feminine enough, then certainly a (biologically) male employee like Carla cannot be punished for not being masculine enough. Yet with the exception dresses of the recent New Jersey ruling, courts, for the most part, have stuck to their guns dresses despite Price Waterhouse. That is, they have continued to interpret Title VII and its state counterparts to permit employers to punish transsexuals for, in essence, failing to conform to gender expectations. Why? The Law of Dress Codes Decisions upholding these kinds of rules are anomalous because they seemingly permit precisely what Title VII clearly forbids: treating employees differently on the basis of sex. Not surprisingly, the reasoning of these decisions is unconvincing.
|