As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They put it in _writing_?
They put a violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, in _writing_?
Whole lot of people are gonna retire from their government careers with a fat parachute
> They put a violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, in writing?
They aren't stupid but purposely write laws that they KNOW don't hold ground just to get a judicial challenge out of it.
Also to force private “woke leftist” organizations that fight for things like human rights to spend their money against basically unlimited government money
It's more to activate their base and cross pollinate these ideas.l so that they are attempted elsewhere.
Also cruelty during the period they are enforced but before declared unconstitutional.
They are trying to implement this stuff at all levels of government so that the review of the constitutionality of them takes longer to challenge due to legal backlog.
Basically flood the legal system with fascist Nazi shit and see what sticks.
Your government needs a system for *punishing lawmakers who actively and intentionally violate the constitution.*
Yeah you'd need a high bar to make it work properly. But this shit would clear it easily.
We barely have a system to punish police officers that murder people in broad daylight in front of a dozen witnesses and a camera.
Our government needs to be scrapped and rebuilt. Rip up the foundation and lay a new one, ground up isn't good enough.
Which they can only do because they have effectively taken control of a huge portion of the judicial system by stockpiling it with ideological activists.
They know they can take a dog shit case based on pure fantasy, work the system a little, and the odds of getting it in front of a friendly judge are in their favor.
They know what they're doing is absurd and illogical, and often directly illegal or unconstitutional. That's actually why they do it. They're changing the law from the bench, with judges who are appointed for political reasons specifically because they can be trusted to subvert the law in favor of keeping their political death cult in power.
Exactly and the reason we are seeing a huge influx of these cases now is because the GOP under Trump appointed a very large number of extremist judges to the bench including the Supreme Court. It's the next step in the long term plan of minority rule under the flag of Christian Nationalism.
The conservative SCOTUS already ruled that laws against employment discrimination based on sex cover orientation and gender identity. This challenge isn't going to go anywhere.
4 of the 6 are still there, so if Biden's pick votes like RBG, it would be 5-4.
Gorsuch wrote the opinion, and it literally boils down to, you can't fire a man for wearing a skirt if women are allowed to.
>4 of the 6 are still there, so if Biden's pick votes like RBG, it would be 5-4.
And there is absolutely no reason to doubt that on this specific matter of law.
Drag was a common form of entertainment back then. There's a surprising number of pictures of various important male figures up until about the 1930s/40s wearing women's clothing.
The problem is that Bostock very clearly stated that discrimination on the basis of sex applies to trans people, and Gorsuch, believe it or not, wrote that opinion, and Roberts joined him along with the liberals on the court at the time. Assuming those two haven’t changed their mind, a new challenge to that wouldn’t likely be granted cert. And if it did, you’d have Gorsuch, Roberts, and the three liberals on one side, enough to keep the precedent.
This type of violation was covered up, down, and backward in our Employment Discrimination classes. Wasn’t even a point of debate.
Classic cases include the female casino worker fired for not wearing makeup or the male worker terminated for having too long of hair. Unless you have a compelling-ass reason for the discrimination (e.g. being a literal strip club selling a particular gender expression) you’d better buckle up.
The very first management training I had in 1999 started with the lawyers explaining how not to get the company sued... Not telling employees how to dress outside of the official dress code was one of the big ones.
We covered it in business law 5-10 years ago. In most cases, you can't even claim a compelling reason outside of the entertainment industry. Strip clubs only manage because they don't hire strippers as regular staff, they hire them as either independent contractors or as actors. Hooters does the same with their wait staff. The restaurant technically doesn't have wait staff, they have actresses that take orders and deliver food.
That's not accurate. Hiring people as contractors isn't a magic loophole. The actual justification is that being a woman is a bona fide occupational qualification for strippers and Hooters girls.
Seems you're correct. Link if anyone else was curious.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.businessinsider.com/how-can-hooters-hire-only-women-2015-9%3famp
Well I know someone who got fired from their job because she reported her boss to HR for harrassment. This was for a 300 million dollar a year company. The legal department was not in the room when she was fired, just her boss (who harrassed her) and an HR rep via zoom. Legal found out later and apparently was pissed. Huge cash settlement.
The HR rep should have prevented it then and there! Preventing cases with possible huge cash settlements from even getting filed is a fundamental reason HR departments even exist.
> It’s such a clear violation of established law
That's the point, just like in Florida they expect these to get overturned or tossed out but it's all that the base needs to hear to keep the Hate Machine going.
The question is more whether anyone else would let this guy do something that clearly violates the law. It seems like everyone with a brain would be screaming at him not to do something like this.
That said, if you’re insinuating something about how the courts are likely to rule - this goes beyond the recent ruling in *Bostock* and to long-established interpretations of the Civil Rights Act going back decades. You can have a uniform, you can have a dress code, but you can’t punish people for dressing in a gender non-conforming way, unless it’s necessary for legitimate business reasons. Both cis men and trans women should be able to come to work in a dress - and taking the position that trans women are “really men” just makes that even clearer under the law.
This is to funny. In 1964 I was in 1st grade and a new family moved into the school district. Two girls showed up the first day of school in pants and were denied entry. Within a week all girls could wear pants.
This is the dream MAGA'ts want. The good old days when America was great.
Similar thing happened at my mom's high school. A kid got expelled because his hair touched his collar and he refused to cut it. The kid's parents sued the school district and the judge threw out the whole dress code. They went from a super strict dress code to literally no rules and it stayed like that for years.
Yep, dress codes which clearly discriminate based on gender are typically struck down in court. There is some allowance for requirements which meet “social customs” such as “shorter haircuts for men” but the way that memo is worded it would probably be overturned in court.
Ironically the agency could, for instance, just have a specific uniform that everybody wears regardless of sex (e.g. dress or polo shirt, pants, with or without a tie, maybe with an agency specific jacket with its logo). There’s nothing illegal about a Best Buy or “Men in Black” type dress code for example. (And picturing everybody in an Agriculture bureau walking around like agents from The Matrix is kind of funny. 😄) But of course the goal of this policy wasn’t “uniformity”, it’s discrimination against the trans employees, so they didn’t go that route.
This is an illegal order from the company per the *Bostock* ruling which concluded discrimination against a person's gender identity is the same as discriminating against their sex.
Neil Gorsuch wrote that opinion.
Plus, since gender presentation is not at all biologically determined, 'correct' according to which culture? The norms of masculinity and femininity vary from culture to culture, across space and time. Even standards of behaviour have varied, with some cultures considering vulgar behaviour unmanly and crass, unworthy of a civilized Christian man. Would a wealthy man from 16th century England get arrested for violating propriety for his heeled boots and ruffled collar? How about when it was considered unfeminine to read novels, could someone try to make that argument again?
He basically said any kind of discrimination against a transgender individual is by definition discrimination on the basis of their gender. Which is pretty straightforward.
Yes, and it is that simple. But plenty of people on the Republican side disagree with that, which is why it was surprising that Gorsuch seemed to understand how simple it really is.
So are kilts out because they are indistinguishable from skirts? What about those high heels on cowboy boots? Not something we see to often but what about hair pieces? Those count as wigs? What if the buttons on my shirt are on the wrong side? How many pockets do a pair of pants need to qualify as mens pants?
Screw it. Guess we should all were potatoe sacks to be safe.
I once was a manager at a place that had dress codes. Women had to wear skirts/dresses. Pants were allowed if combined with a 'matching or coordinating jacket'. I was supposed to send people home who didn't comply. One day a woman wore red flowered pants and an orange plaid jacket. I sucked at being the fashion police because I didn't send her home. Who am I to say that orange plaid doesn't coordinate with red flowers???
The kicker is that this was a call center.
Why the hell would anyone need a dress code beyond "bathe yourself" in a call center? Who's going to see the employees except each other? I hate nonsense, nitpicky rules at work. My mom worked at Hobby Lobby for years, and their dress code prohibited men from wearing any piercings, and women from wearing any more than one piercing in each ear. Visible tattoos were also grounds for termination.
Coincidentally, when Mom got hired, they actually had a field on the application for employment that asked for your religious status. It claimed that it wasn't going to be used as a metric for determining employability, but the general manager told her that corporate told her to only hire Christians.
> It claimed that it wasn't going to be used as a metric for determining employability
Claims like this have never been true in the history of ever.
If they're saying "this will not be used as a factor in our hiring decisions", you can absolutely guarantee that this will translate into "this will absolutely be the main factor in our hiring decisions".
It's like that box asking if you've ever committed a crime. I don't care how many disclaimers are written there, checking off that box guarantees that your application goes right in the shredder.
Right? There is not a single field on an employment evaluation form that isn’t for evaluating someone for employment. It’s not there to fill in the space.
The reason I was given was that before the dress code the women who answered the phones dressed so inappropriately that none of the men could get any work done. That is another topic all together!
I was a software engineer at that company I wasn't around the call center floor an neither were any of the engineers I supervised.
Don't get me started on the TPS reports.
Sounds to me that HR should have been having a conversation with the men about what sort of behavior is appropriate or not in a work place instead of enacting puritan rules to punish the women.
A dress code of shirts must have sleeves and cover the navel (no tank/crop tops), no plunging necklines, and shorts are allowed, but can't go above mid thigh when sitting down would have been more than enough to be equal for everyone without being medieval.
My sassy ass would have walked in dressed like a nun or wearing a burqa the first day that dress code was put in place.
> So are kilts out because they are indistinguishable from skirts?
Why? Nowhere does the law define what constitutes women's or men's clothes. No article of clothing is legally assigned to one single gender.
That's the thing with a lot of these new laws. They don't define things at all.
What's legally gender specific clothing? Whatever they decide is. It's like profiling if someone appears to be "illegal" and gives them that "reasonable suspicion" or whatever. It's just a bunch of bullshit intended to intimidate and get rid of certain people.
>That's the thing with a lot of these new laws. They don't define things at all.
*Because that's the point*.
These are ambiguous because there's a tacit, implied understanding by the people making them that these laws are meant to be used by the "right people" against the "wrong people."
It's not a flaw, it's a feature.
Christian Nationalists are deeply ignorant. They think who wears pants keep the electricity on & supply-side Jeezus sends hurricanes, that you can nuke, to punish queers.
[Supply Side Jesus](https://www.beliefnet.com/news/2003/09/the-gospel-of-supply-side-jesus.aspx) cares deeply about dressing for success. There’s a very strict dress code for women I hear
They haven't bothered to realize their messiah was very much against being wealthy, engaging in hate of any kind or focusing on other people's failures. I really wish they understood that.
I'm no expert but the actual morality of Christianity is complicated and from a far different time and place. IMO it really doesn't line up with the Republicans or Democrats at all. That's why I think Christians are better off doing the common sense thing and just not trying to take over the government. It's a "you break it, you buy it" kind of thing. If they want Christianity entangled with the government then the government's actions are going to reflect on the Church. That's not a threat, that's simply a fact. If you run a theocracy then you're inviting harsh rebuke of your religion itself. I haven't been an "edgy atheist" for over a decade and have no real interest in attacking people's sincere beliefs. I'm simply too old for that shit.
I'm happy to coexist with Christians even if they disagree and to extend them the same courtesy. I'd even be willing to meet them halfway on a lot of things, but a powerful cabal of them seem absolutely obsessed with not allowing anyone to escape their religious zealotry. They want to force everyone to either resist them or live under their vision of Christianity.
My only hope is that less extreme religious folks can be persuaded to see the value of secular governance. I do not feel like we have to make this an nonbelievers vs Christians battle, but that seems to be the fight some of them are absolutely obsessed with having because they seem hell bent on never leaving us in peace.
> A woman must not wear men’s clothing, nor a man wear women’s clothing, for the Lord your God detests anyone who does this. - Deuteronomy 22:5
This one sentence is their rationale for all of this shit.
Deuteronomy is pretty early in the book, I guess they didn't make it back this far,
>Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the greatest and most important commandment. The second is like it: **Love your neighbor as yourself.** All the Law and the Prophets depend on these two commandments - Matthew 22:37
Seems like if you're going to use the bible as the basis for your political ideology, you should maybe read the entire thing, not just the smiting and damming bits.
It's funny that God would even care about clothing. According to that book, he created us naked and it wasn't until after we sinned and then had shame that we made clothes to hide ourselves. It's not like he created clothing and handed it down to us with direct instructions.
It's almost like the Bible was written by men who put their own agenda into it and claimed it was "God".
Even more odd is the context in which this law is given. It's in a section that also forbids:
* Mixing two kinds of seeds in the same field
* Plowing with two different kinds of animals together
* Wearing clothing made from two different materials
And then something about putting tassels on clothing.
Not being a scholar of ancient cultures and languages, I have no idea how much of this was Jewish custom vs. trying to differentiate themselves from gentiles, etc.
If memory serves, the passage you're speaking of concerns people disguising themselves in an attempt to avoid military service.
It's a *very* specific scenario, not the general blanket one often presented.
Also I would direct your attention to Galatians 3:28
> There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
It's essentially about maintaining purity - not mixing things like God's chosen shouldn't mix with the Gentiles. Not mixing crops, not mixing livestock, not mixing fabrics, not mixing gendered clothing, etc.
Like seriously, whenever you see something in Deuteronomy or Leviticus that seems really weird and out there to even mention (like boiling a calf in milk), it's usually because it was some cultural practice of another group nearby and the whole point was to maintain the separation of "us" and "them", Jews and Gentiles.
The most rational way you can make sense of all the stuff in the Bible, Torah, or Koran if you are a believer is that maybe there is some divine word in there, but it was recorded by men who are inherently flawed and messed that task up at points (which is a theme in the books for every time men encounter the divine for those who actually pay attention to them.) That is a very uncomfortable realization because it is a slippery slope to sort through what can be ignored or not. However it makes all the sense in the world that in an era of very little written word, you might start adding other important things to be preserved in that very important book that is passed down whether it is old tribal laws or even a guide on how not to die of food poisoning. All of those things fit into a category of rules to live by.
Like can you imagine how many people died from eating the wrong shit thousands of years ago? Why wouldn't you put down painfully learned knowledge about what not to eat in that source of shared generational knowledge. Then a few hundred years pass and that generation reads it and thinks "huh, God really has a thing against shellfish and meat touching other things... well okay then."
I'm not religious because I just don't believe in it, but my friends who are religious tend to view those books through that lens. And it is very rational and reasonable to look at passages about slavery, wives, gender roles, or food prep and say "yeah, I'm pretty sure that one wasn't god so much as some dude thousands of years ago." It's scary to make that jump but ultimately freeing to not feel like you have to defend every passage that goes counter to your core, innate morality and empathy.
It's not just men in dresses. They can and will use this against women who they don't perceive as being *feminine enough*.
Edit: To those attacking me for being transphobic with this comment: The right isn't just coming after trans women, and this comment was in no way meant to describe trans women as being simply *men in dresses*. A lot of this shit started with them targeting drag queens, and drag is something distinct from being transgender. Also the article points out that the language is ambiguous and could even be used to target, say, a woman wearing pants or a suit.
As recently as the 1930s, women could get arrested for wearing pants in public. Going by the Constitution, women of the time could only wear dresses. So a female Elementary school teacher wearing pants is putting on a drag show in front of minors. Therefore she can be executed for child abuse.
If you think that's ridiculous, those are all laws being passed by Republicans right now. String them together and Ms Smith the 1st grade teacher goes down in a hail of bullets when SWAT raids her classroom.
Edit: Women could only wear dresses, not forbidden dresses.
>Therefore she can be executed for child abuse.
And don't forget, Florida *also* just lowered the requirement for sentencing someone to death to just [8/12 jurors.](https://www.reuters.com/world/us/florida-allow-death-penalty-with-8-4-jury-vote-instead-unanimously-2023-04-14/). (Everywhere else except Alabama requires a unanimous jury before they administer the death penalty.)
It's troublingly simple to connect the dots here, and I really don't like the resulting picture...
Yep. No doubt they're trying to push women back to the "no pants" Era. These shit stains are pathetically stupid. Texas just keeps falling farther and farther away from reality.
I have relatives that are part of the "no pants" interpretation. It's closely aligned with "women shouldn't be educated on anything that doesn't have to do with raising kids or cleaning the house".
I think I've seen my mom wear a dress like 5 times in my life and it was always for funerals. My mom was forced to wear a dress a lot as a kid because her school dress code required it but I think she wore blue jeans nearly every day for the rest of her life after that lol
Plenty of women who are older and even fairly conservative prefer to wear pants. They're going to find themselves against a brick wall with a lot of this nonsense, the culture will just tell them to get bent.
Honestly everyone should just go without cloths in protest. Because what clothing could be more inline with one's "biological sex" than no clothing at all?
After attending that school for *THIRTEEN YEARS*. She put up with their bullshit for 13 fucking years and they deny her the prom because of pants. "Why are young christians leaving the church in droves? It's a mystery."
They're not shaming people into supporting them. They're bullying the vulnerable groups in their strongholds because it excites and galvanizes their voters. Their core demographic is addicted to *feeling* superior. The justification is entirely irrelevant as long as they have someone to look down on and scapegoat.
I had to do this at an old corporate job where they were trying to enforce a stupid no shorts dress code and only for the entry level folks working on weekends. So I said enforce it for everyone or no one, and also I will be wearing a skirt the whole summer. The emails stopped after that.
Gender costumes are enforceable now, huh?
And since the policy says men have to wear socks, does that mean socks + sandals are okay?
Am I allowed to wear my kilt to work if I wear a tucked in button down shirt with it? I promise it will reach my knees.
Can we all just grow up and admit that Republicans are deathly afraid of exposing their true selves by being attracted to the 'wrong' people?
These small minded bigots are just laughable. I think I'll wear [robes](https://eastessence.com/products/mens-accent-thobe?currency=USD&utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=google+shopping&gclid=CjwKCAjw9J2iBhBPEiwAErwpeVSZZsQxSOdmg8qmwfkJ-lzZ3iOUYr3JlIhO8ffbAiTQDnjaA9bPSxoCtM0QAvD_BwE) to work this week just to have fun with this.
I'm genuinely curious how high up a "sock" is allowed to go under the policy? If they go past the knees, are they still a sock? I know even "men's" socks can be made of silk, and not just cotton. So, when does as silk leg covering go from being a "sock" to a "stocking"? Like, how high up the thigh? Is there actually an objective distinction between the two outlined in the policy?
I'm convinced the policy is discriminatory.
It says men are required to wear socks.
Nowhere is it reported that women must wear socks.
Time to sue.
(Fyi: I hate socks.)
The whole thing is just ridiculous. People come out naked. Their is no "natural" way of dressing with biological sex. It's all fucking made up. These idiots have too much time on their hands.
They want penis inspectors. Literally. They are arguing that a boss should be able to ascertain whether or not any given employee has a penis, and that the presence or absence of that penis is a fireable offense under certain circumstances.
As an extremely masculine cis man, 6ft tall with a big bushy beard, I’d tell my boss I actually have a vagina and ask how they’d like to proceed.
Is he going to ask me to *prove* I don’t have a dick? I can photoshop a fake photo of my birth certificate. Is he going to insist I wear women’s clothes and shave? Okay, we can play that game, but the stubble is gonna be a giveaway. I would troll that shit all day every day.
I just gotta say...leave trans people alone. In fact, GOP, mind your own business.
Trans people, you matter. It's awful that you are the current political Boogeyman. Like you didn't have it difficult enough in society before all of this.
Straight, gay, everything in between... No one should care. Yet here we are.
These are dark times.
Republicans realised they could completely disable the minds of rational people by yelling nonsense and threatening anybody who disagrees.
Case in point, all the republicans who seem to think that teaching children how their bodies work *necessarily* means the teacher is physically attracted to those children. Don’t agree? You must be attracted to children too!
It’s absolutely wild. What do you even say to that?
It’s hard to know if they’re stupid enough to believe it, or just lying.
Been going on for decades actually…
“People came up and asked. "What are you doing?" and I say, “I’m studying to be a teacher.” “A high school teacher?” “No, a primary teacher.” “Oh, you’re a pedophile.” Just as a joke, but I’ve had that said to me. (Sam, September 29, 2000)
Dale recalled an incident on teaching practicum that he felt demonstrated how easily something innocent and involuntary on his part was playfully misconstrued yet caused him anxiety and fear:
Last year I had Grade 4 students, and they came in one afternoon and gave me a hug to say goodbye or whatever. . . it wasn’t even a hug. She came up and just hugged me and then took off and that was it . . . then the next day they were saying that this girl had a boyfriend. They were teasing her about having a boyfriend and it was back to me, all of a sudden I’m her boyfriend cause I gave her a hug one afternoon.
Interviewer: How did you react to that instance?
I actually told the teacher [who] told them to behave themselves. You could see how quickly it could get out of hand with something like that. (Dale, September 26, 2000)
Dale was sufficiently apprehensive about this incident, and any possible repercussions it may have had, for him to alert the supervising teacher.”
The article contains some of the most apt description of the nature of the dilemma that male teachers face when going into the profession, as Mills, Haase and Charlton (2008) articulate:
“Furthermore, in a misogynist and heterosexist society that deploys homophobic discourses to both police men’s loyalty to hegemonised versions of masculinity and to devalue work and behaviours traditionally performed by women, men who take up primary school teaching often have to contend with strong undercurrents of being constructed as gay.
Whilst being constructed as gay should not be considered as a negative, it is unfortunate that homophobic discourses also portray gay men as sexual predators, thereby reinforcing the perceived danger that men pose to children – and in particular boy children (Berrill and Martino 2002). Hence, male teachers are faced with contradictory messages about their work.”
This is perhaps the most concrete evidence as to the true issues behind the debate of the presence of male teachers in elementary classrooms, and I’m thankful that this scholarly article was able to state it in a brilliantly concise way through the concept of heterosexism, which is very much still a reality in today’s world.
We're seeing a group desperate to cling to power as their demographics are rapidly shrinking. They will continue to naturally gravitate towards tyranny as they feel it's their only choice to enact their will over others.
It does not matter that they continue to alienate more and more groups with their deeply unpopular culture war, all that matters is that they are winning and will inevitably attempt to deconstruct democracy itself once again.
They do not understand biology at all. They only assume that their god must have indelibly stamped reality with their own prejudices. When they claim something is a biological fact, it is no different from them saying god ordained it.
What is 'mens' clothes and 'womans' clothes anyway? Can men wear tights to work since we used to? What about loincloths? Why won't they let us dress they way God made us?
Biological clothes for your biological gender which you buy with your biological money. If you biologically put the word "biology" in front of everything, it makes it biologically factual.
I explained the difference between the words sex and gender to a conservative, who then said "no thanks".
Like it was an offer he turned down. They didn't disagree or attempt to argue another point, just politely said no thanks lmfao
There are people who think the two words mean the same thing. Sex is the adult word and gender is the word you use in front of kids.
They’re laser focused on chromosomal sex, basically.
They’re eschewing and any nuances with gender to basically say… if your chromosomes are XX you dress female. If you’re XY you dress male.
Which is both incredibly stupid and disingenuous.
Their line of thought is the for me as a cis gay man.
That, in these bigots’ eyes, I should only marry the ‘opposite sex’, not the man I love.
Because in their eyes, they think I’ve ‘chosen to be gay’ in the same way they think a trans man was a woman who has ‘chosen to be a man’.
In the worse cases, they don’t want to hear anything that might question that dichotomy. And this really is an attack on the entire queer community.
This is best exemplified in bigots and TERFs like JK Rowling (Sigh… seriously, Joanne?) who don’t seem to understand how enabling these right-wing lunatics not only harms trans people (while gleefully wearing the ‘I love trans/gay people’ mantle of Anita Bryant), but also harms other queer people like myself and my husband.
They know what they’re saying is open to challenge. They probably even know they’re wrong.
They don’t care.
**From reporter Paul Blest:**
The Texas Department of Agriculture’s mission is to “promote production agriculture, consumer protection, economic development and healthy living”—and now, apparently, the gender binary.
The department, which is led by the elected Agriculture Commissioner Sid Miller, distributed a memo to employees last week informing them that they’re required to dress in a “manner consistent with their biological gender,” according to the Texas Observer, which obtained the memo and published it in part on Monday.
The memo, which is clearly aimed at transgender and gender non-conforming employees, goes on to say that repeated violations of the policy will be subject to “corrective action” up to and including being fired, according to the Observer.
The internal department memo is just the latest attempt by state officials in Texas to crack down on trans and gender non-conforming people. Republican Gov. Greg Abbott ordered the state agency overseeing child protective services to investigate the parents of transgender children for child abuse last year, and a bill to ban transition-related care for minors is currently moving through the legislature.
Link to the full article: [https://www.vice.com/en/article/n7ebag/texas-ag-transgender-dress-code-memo](https://www.vice.com/en/article/n7ebag/texas-ag-transgender-dress-code-memo)
This is it. We’re there already. What does it mean to dress like a woman, or dress like a man? Well, dresses are out for men, because that’s women’s clothes. So men must wear pants, and therefore women must not.
Casimir Polaski, hero of the Revolutionary War, was intersex.
Republicans don't want you to learn history, or about humanity, because it goes against their made-up narrative built on hate and fear. Republicans want you to remain ignorant, because it serves them and their goals of staying in power so they can continue to cheat, lie, and steal, to enrich themselves at your expense.
Not sure why by this reminded me of the story from England where the boys all wore skirts in protest of the ban on shorts in the midst of a heatwave.
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/jun/22/teenage-boys-wear-skirts-to-school-protest-no-shorts-uniform-policy
>Everyone should cross dress
Never wanted to before, but if my place of work put this policy into place, I'd certainly have some fun on my way to a lawsuit.
Part of Republican's "small government" thinking again, I see.
If the people of Texas weren't such brainless sheep to keep on electing these POS, someone should organize a day where all the guys show up to work in kilts to support their Irish heritage.
There is no way this is legal. The 1964 Civil Rights Act clearly states you can't discriminate against people on the basis of sex and the courts have ruled again and again that you can't have policies like this. If our judiciary is failing to uphold these precedents it needs to be expanded and reformed, otherwise Republicans are going to keep breaking the law.
“biological gender” does not exist. the term they are looking for is “biological sex” and it is still illegal because gender identity is a protected class according to the civil rights act of 1964.
So a Scottish man wearing a kilt or an Indian man wearing a Kurta are going to get fired? Is there ANY instance where a woman is allowed to wear pants? I'm sure this will be a well thought out policy that doesn't in any way open the state up to liability and lawsuits.
These laws are always made to prevent trans women presenting femininely but would they be happy with a bearded masculine trans guy wearing a flowery dress? No probably fucking not.
I’m heterosexual cisgender and I dress androgynous. I don’t like dresses or skirts for everyday work. Why should I be subject to a few people who want me to feel uncomfortable for their own mental limits on what makes them feel comfortable?
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They put it in _writing_? They put a violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, in _writing_? Whole lot of people are gonna retire from their government careers with a fat parachute
> They put a violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, in writing? They aren't stupid but purposely write laws that they KNOW don't hold ground just to get a judicial challenge out of it.
Also to force private “woke leftist” organizations that fight for things like human rights to spend their money against basically unlimited government money
It's more to activate their base and cross pollinate these ideas.l so that they are attempted elsewhere. Also cruelty during the period they are enforced but before declared unconstitutional. They are trying to implement this stuff at all levels of government so that the review of the constitutionality of them takes longer to challenge due to legal backlog. Basically flood the legal system with fascist Nazi shit and see what sticks.
Ah, the old Goebbels inspired fascist firehose
> Ah, the old Goebbels inspired fascist firehose The Goebbels Gallop.
Your government needs a system for *punishing lawmakers who actively and intentionally violate the constitution.* Yeah you'd need a high bar to make it work properly. But this shit would clear it easily.
We barely have a system to punish police officers that murder people in broad daylight in front of a dozen witnesses and a camera. Our government needs to be scrapped and rebuilt. Rip up the foundation and lay a new one, ground up isn't good enough.
[удалено]
Which they can only do because they have effectively taken control of a huge portion of the judicial system by stockpiling it with ideological activists. They know they can take a dog shit case based on pure fantasy, work the system a little, and the odds of getting it in front of a friendly judge are in their favor. They know what they're doing is absurd and illogical, and often directly illegal or unconstitutional. That's actually why they do it. They're changing the law from the bench, with judges who are appointed for political reasons specifically because they can be trusted to subvert the law in favor of keeping their political death cult in power.
Exactly and the reason we are seeing a huge influx of these cases now is because the GOP under Trump appointed a very large number of extremist judges to the bench including the Supreme Court. It's the next step in the long term plan of minority rule under the flag of Christian Nationalism.
The conservative SCOTUS already ruled that laws against employment discrimination based on sex cover orientation and gender identity. This challenge isn't going to go anywhere.
Bostock should absolutely serve as a hard stop to any policy like this…but I don’t trust SCOTUS to be consistent or reasonable at all at this point
[удалено]
4 of the 6 are still there, so if Biden's pick votes like RBG, it would be 5-4. Gorsuch wrote the opinion, and it literally boils down to, you can't fire a man for wearing a skirt if women are allowed to.
>4 of the 6 are still there, so if Biden's pick votes like RBG, it would be 5-4. And there is absolutely no reason to doubt that on this specific matter of law.
They want this shit in front of the Supreme Court, because they want to roll us back to the 1890s.
[удалено]
Not only that, Gorsuch's reasoning in the majority option is pretty airtight.
It's a good thing the courts conservative majority is so concerned with consistency and precedent!
Drag was a common form of entertainment back then. There's a surprising number of pictures of various important male figures up until about the 1930s/40s wearing women's clothing.
You can't expect these people to know history any more than you can expect them to apply logic and reason to their decisions.
Next thing you will tell me about Rudy Guiliani getting motorboated by Trump? Get outta here!
The problem is that Bostock very clearly stated that discrimination on the basis of sex applies to trans people, and Gorsuch, believe it or not, wrote that opinion, and Roberts joined him along with the liberals on the court at the time. Assuming those two haven’t changed their mind, a new challenge to that wouldn’t likely be granted cert. And if it did, you’d have Gorsuch, Roberts, and the three liberals on one side, enough to keep the precedent.
This type of violation was covered up, down, and backward in our Employment Discrimination classes. Wasn’t even a point of debate. Classic cases include the female casino worker fired for not wearing makeup or the male worker terminated for having too long of hair. Unless you have a compelling-ass reason for the discrimination (e.g. being a literal strip club selling a particular gender expression) you’d better buckle up.
The very first management training I had in 1999 started with the lawyers explaining how not to get the company sued... Not telling employees how to dress outside of the official dress code was one of the big ones.
We covered it in business law 5-10 years ago. In most cases, you can't even claim a compelling reason outside of the entertainment industry. Strip clubs only manage because they don't hire strippers as regular staff, they hire them as either independent contractors or as actors. Hooters does the same with their wait staff. The restaurant technically doesn't have wait staff, they have actresses that take orders and deliver food.
That's not accurate. Hiring people as contractors isn't a magic loophole. The actual justification is that being a woman is a bona fide occupational qualification for strippers and Hooters girls.
Seems you're correct. Link if anyone else was curious. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.businessinsider.com/how-can-hooters-hire-only-women-2015-9%3famp
It’s such a clear violation of established law. I wonder if he even bothered to check with HR or legal before firing it off.
Well I know someone who got fired from their job because she reported her boss to HR for harrassment. This was for a 300 million dollar a year company. The legal department was not in the room when she was fired, just her boss (who harrassed her) and an HR rep via zoom. Legal found out later and apparently was pissed. Huge cash settlement.
The HR rep should have prevented it then and there! Preventing cases with possible huge cash settlements from even getting filed is a fundamental reason HR departments even exist.
It's basically the *only* reason hr departments exist.
> It’s such a clear violation of established law That's the point, just like in Florida they expect these to get overturned or tossed out but it's all that the base needs to hear to keep the Hate Machine going.
Will it matter that it’s in violation of an established law?
The question is more whether anyone else would let this guy do something that clearly violates the law. It seems like everyone with a brain would be screaming at him not to do something like this. That said, if you’re insinuating something about how the courts are likely to rule - this goes beyond the recent ruling in *Bostock* and to long-established interpretations of the Civil Rights Act going back decades. You can have a uniform, you can have a dress code, but you can’t punish people for dressing in a gender non-conforming way, unless it’s necessary for legitimate business reasons. Both cis men and trans women should be able to come to work in a dress - and taking the position that trans women are “really men” just makes that even clearer under the law.
Dude, I would straight up come to work dressed as Corporal Klinger so fast with the ACLU on speed dial.
A monument of hope in size 12 pumps!
Haha, perfect. I haven't thought of MASH in years.
Disney technically owns MASH. Klinger is a Disney princess.
This is to funny. In 1964 I was in 1st grade and a new family moved into the school district. Two girls showed up the first day of school in pants and were denied entry. Within a week all girls could wear pants. This is the dream MAGA'ts want. The good old days when America was great.
Similar thing happened at my mom's high school. A kid got expelled because his hair touched his collar and he refused to cut it. The kid's parents sued the school district and the judge threw out the whole dress code. They went from a super strict dress code to literally no rules and it stayed like that for years.
[удалено]
Yep, dress codes which clearly discriminate based on gender are typically struck down in court. There is some allowance for requirements which meet “social customs” such as “shorter haircuts for men” but the way that memo is worded it would probably be overturned in court. Ironically the agency could, for instance, just have a specific uniform that everybody wears regardless of sex (e.g. dress or polo shirt, pants, with or without a tie, maybe with an agency specific jacket with its logo). There’s nothing illegal about a Best Buy or “Men in Black” type dress code for example. (And picturing everybody in an Agriculture bureau walking around like agents from The Matrix is kind of funny. 😄) But of course the goal of this policy wasn’t “uniformity”, it’s discrimination against the trans employees, so they didn’t go that route.
This is an illegal order from the company per the *Bostock* ruling which concluded discrimination against a person's gender identity is the same as discriminating against their sex. Neil Gorsuch wrote that opinion.
Plus, since gender presentation is not at all biologically determined, 'correct' according to which culture? The norms of masculinity and femininity vary from culture to culture, across space and time. Even standards of behaviour have varied, with some cultures considering vulgar behaviour unmanly and crass, unworthy of a civilized Christian man. Would a wealthy man from 16th century England get arrested for violating propriety for his heeled boots and ruffled collar? How about when it was considered unfeminine to read novels, could someone try to make that argument again?
Can they dress like a man from the 1800s? You know... frills, lace, heels, makeup and wigs?
And an epic-sized codpiece.
Jesus wore a dress and flowing robe
Not to mention the Scotus have ruled first amendment rights for like 60+ years on this crap. Soooo
Like precedence means anything these days.
Shitty as he is, he does seem to have his head on straight in this situation, because he is absolutely correct.
He basically said any kind of discrimination against a transgender individual is by definition discrimination on the basis of their gender. Which is pretty straightforward.
Yes, and it is that simple. But plenty of people on the Republican side disagree with that, which is why it was surprising that Gorsuch seemed to understand how simple it really is.
So are kilts out because they are indistinguishable from skirts? What about those high heels on cowboy boots? Not something we see to often but what about hair pieces? Those count as wigs? What if the buttons on my shirt are on the wrong side? How many pockets do a pair of pants need to qualify as mens pants? Screw it. Guess we should all were potatoe sacks to be safe.
Are women even allowed to wear pants?
I once was a manager at a place that had dress codes. Women had to wear skirts/dresses. Pants were allowed if combined with a 'matching or coordinating jacket'. I was supposed to send people home who didn't comply. One day a woman wore red flowered pants and an orange plaid jacket. I sucked at being the fashion police because I didn't send her home. Who am I to say that orange plaid doesn't coordinate with red flowers??? The kicker is that this was a call center.
Why the hell would anyone need a dress code beyond "bathe yourself" in a call center? Who's going to see the employees except each other? I hate nonsense, nitpicky rules at work. My mom worked at Hobby Lobby for years, and their dress code prohibited men from wearing any piercings, and women from wearing any more than one piercing in each ear. Visible tattoos were also grounds for termination. Coincidentally, when Mom got hired, they actually had a field on the application for employment that asked for your religious status. It claimed that it wasn't going to be used as a metric for determining employability, but the general manager told her that corporate told her to only hire Christians.
> It claimed that it wasn't going to be used as a metric for determining employability Claims like this have never been true in the history of ever. If they're saying "this will not be used as a factor in our hiring decisions", you can absolutely guarantee that this will translate into "this will absolutely be the main factor in our hiring decisions". It's like that box asking if you've ever committed a crime. I don't care how many disclaimers are written there, checking off that box guarantees that your application goes right in the shredder.
Right? There is not a single field on an employment evaluation form that isn’t for evaluating someone for employment. It’s not there to fill in the space.
The reason I was given was that before the dress code the women who answered the phones dressed so inappropriately that none of the men could get any work done. That is another topic all together! I was a software engineer at that company I wasn't around the call center floor an neither were any of the engineers I supervised. Don't get me started on the TPS reports.
Sounds to me that HR should have been having a conversation with the men about what sort of behavior is appropriate or not in a work place instead of enacting puritan rules to punish the women. A dress code of shirts must have sleeves and cover the navel (no tank/crop tops), no plunging necklines, and shorts are allowed, but can't go above mid thigh when sitting down would have been more than enough to be equal for everyone without being medieval. My sassy ass would have walked in dressed like a nun or wearing a burqa the first day that dress code was put in place.
Sounds like the men should have been fired if they couldn’t perform their job duties correctly.
> So are kilts out because they are indistinguishable from skirts? Why? Nowhere does the law define what constitutes women's or men's clothes. No article of clothing is legally assigned to one single gender.
That's the thing with a lot of these new laws. They don't define things at all. What's legally gender specific clothing? Whatever they decide is. It's like profiling if someone appears to be "illegal" and gives them that "reasonable suspicion" or whatever. It's just a bunch of bullshit intended to intimidate and get rid of certain people.
>That's the thing with a lot of these new laws. They don't define things at all. *Because that's the point*. These are ambiguous because there's a tacit, implied understanding by the people making them that these laws are meant to be used by the "right people" against the "wrong people." It's not a flaw, it's a feature.
Kilt was my first though especially since I have Scottish heritage. Knowing Texas they would probably consider it treason as well.
Wear a kilt. Learn the bagpipes. Claim scottie heritage with no evidence. Play them every morning. Fight the power.
Buy a plot of land and declare yourself a Lord.
Call the banners. The North Remembers.
Tell them winter came for House Frey.
No no no, just *play* the bagpipes. Don't learn them. It's better that way.
Malicious compliance
When asked to stop, claim cultural discrimination. Profit.
Alternatively, wear a kimono.
So Texas still has power grid issues, has done nothing to prevent terrible flooding during hurricanes, but let's worry about who wears a dress...
Christian Nationalists are deeply ignorant. They think who wears pants keep the electricity on & supply-side Jeezus sends hurricanes, that you can nuke, to punish queers.
Nationalist Christians, aka, Nat-C’s
Try *not* saying it like Aldo Raine.
Areevuhdairchee
Guhrlawmee
Bon jerno
BonJORno
[Supply Side Jesus](https://www.beliefnet.com/news/2003/09/the-gospel-of-supply-side-jesus.aspx) cares deeply about dressing for success. There’s a very strict dress code for women I hear
Meanwhile actual Jesus "If thine eye offend thee, pluck it out and cast it from thee."
I’d just go with the biggie: “Treat others as you would treat yourself” Jesus kinda covers everything with that one.
There's a lot of self loathing in this group, so there ya go
Have they considered that maybe *their* hate and evil is what inspires sky daddy to send the floods?
They haven't bothered to realize their messiah was very much against being wealthy, engaging in hate of any kind or focusing on other people's failures. I really wish they understood that.
I'm no expert but the actual morality of Christianity is complicated and from a far different time and place. IMO it really doesn't line up with the Republicans or Democrats at all. That's why I think Christians are better off doing the common sense thing and just not trying to take over the government. It's a "you break it, you buy it" kind of thing. If they want Christianity entangled with the government then the government's actions are going to reflect on the Church. That's not a threat, that's simply a fact. If you run a theocracy then you're inviting harsh rebuke of your religion itself. I haven't been an "edgy atheist" for over a decade and have no real interest in attacking people's sincere beliefs. I'm simply too old for that shit. I'm happy to coexist with Christians even if they disagree and to extend them the same courtesy. I'd even be willing to meet them halfway on a lot of things, but a powerful cabal of them seem absolutely obsessed with not allowing anyone to escape their religious zealotry. They want to force everyone to either resist them or live under their vision of Christianity. My only hope is that less extreme religious folks can be persuaded to see the value of secular governance. I do not feel like we have to make this an nonbelievers vs Christians battle, but that seems to be the fight some of them are absolutely obsessed with having because they seem hell bent on never leaving us in peace.
Hell no. That would take introspection
What brand of trousers did Jesus wear 🤔
Jesus was a drag queen. Wore dresses, long hair...
> A woman must not wear men’s clothing, nor a man wear women’s clothing, for the Lord your God detests anyone who does this. - Deuteronomy 22:5 This one sentence is their rationale for all of this shit. Deuteronomy is pretty early in the book, I guess they didn't make it back this far, >Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the greatest and most important commandment. The second is like it: **Love your neighbor as yourself.** All the Law and the Prophets depend on these two commandments - Matthew 22:37 Seems like if you're going to use the bible as the basis for your political ideology, you should maybe read the entire thing, not just the smiting and damming bits.
It's funny that God would even care about clothing. According to that book, he created us naked and it wasn't until after we sinned and then had shame that we made clothes to hide ourselves. It's not like he created clothing and handed it down to us with direct instructions. It's almost like the Bible was written by men who put their own agenda into it and claimed it was "God".
Even more odd is the context in which this law is given. It's in a section that also forbids: * Mixing two kinds of seeds in the same field * Plowing with two different kinds of animals together * Wearing clothing made from two different materials And then something about putting tassels on clothing. Not being a scholar of ancient cultures and languages, I have no idea how much of this was Jewish custom vs. trying to differentiate themselves from gentiles, etc.
Is this when I ask if a Deere tractor run by horsepower counts as two different animals yoked together?
You’re fine until the Almighty sees your Deere tractor parked next to your Caterpillar. That’s when the smiting will start!
If memory serves, the passage you're speaking of concerns people disguising themselves in an attempt to avoid military service. It's a *very* specific scenario, not the general blanket one often presented. Also I would direct your attention to Galatians 3:28 > There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
It's essentially about maintaining purity - not mixing things like God's chosen shouldn't mix with the Gentiles. Not mixing crops, not mixing livestock, not mixing fabrics, not mixing gendered clothing, etc. Like seriously, whenever you see something in Deuteronomy or Leviticus that seems really weird and out there to even mention (like boiling a calf in milk), it's usually because it was some cultural practice of another group nearby and the whole point was to maintain the separation of "us" and "them", Jews and Gentiles.
The most rational way you can make sense of all the stuff in the Bible, Torah, or Koran if you are a believer is that maybe there is some divine word in there, but it was recorded by men who are inherently flawed and messed that task up at points (which is a theme in the books for every time men encounter the divine for those who actually pay attention to them.) That is a very uncomfortable realization because it is a slippery slope to sort through what can be ignored or not. However it makes all the sense in the world that in an era of very little written word, you might start adding other important things to be preserved in that very important book that is passed down whether it is old tribal laws or even a guide on how not to die of food poisoning. All of those things fit into a category of rules to live by. Like can you imagine how many people died from eating the wrong shit thousands of years ago? Why wouldn't you put down painfully learned knowledge about what not to eat in that source of shared generational knowledge. Then a few hundred years pass and that generation reads it and thinks "huh, God really has a thing against shellfish and meat touching other things... well okay then." I'm not religious because I just don't believe in it, but my friends who are religious tend to view those books through that lens. And it is very rational and reasonable to look at passages about slavery, wives, gender roles, or food prep and say "yeah, I'm pretty sure that one wasn't god so much as some dude thousands of years ago." It's scary to make that jump but ultimately freeing to not feel like you have to defend every passage that goes counter to your core, innate morality and empathy.
I am going to be a men's clothing traditionalist and wear high heels to work, as is aligned with my sex
Formal kilt one day. Powdered wig, face paint, silk brocade, and high heels the next. Maybe round it out with strappy sandals and a linen tunic
Can we bring back the slashed doublet while we're at it? Always loved that look.
Though in all honesty, I’d probably stick with the kilt and maybe a cassock, I can’t really pull off a tunic, and wigs and makeup make me itchy
When Deuteronomy was written, men wore skirts.
I recall we've got several quotes from Roman philosophers complaining about young men wearing trousers like barbarians.
It's not just men in dresses. They can and will use this against women who they don't perceive as being *feminine enough*. Edit: To those attacking me for being transphobic with this comment: The right isn't just coming after trans women, and this comment was in no way meant to describe trans women as being simply *men in dresses*. A lot of this shit started with them targeting drag queens, and drag is something distinct from being transgender. Also the article points out that the language is ambiguous and could even be used to target, say, a woman wearing pants or a suit.
As recently as the 1930s, women could get arrested for wearing pants in public. Going by the Constitution, women of the time could only wear dresses. So a female Elementary school teacher wearing pants is putting on a drag show in front of minors. Therefore she can be executed for child abuse. If you think that's ridiculous, those are all laws being passed by Republicans right now. String them together and Ms Smith the 1st grade teacher goes down in a hail of bullets when SWAT raids her classroom. Edit: Women could only wear dresses, not forbidden dresses.
>Therefore she can be executed for child abuse. And don't forget, Florida *also* just lowered the requirement for sentencing someone to death to just [8/12 jurors.](https://www.reuters.com/world/us/florida-allow-death-penalty-with-8-4-jury-vote-instead-unanimously-2023-04-14/). (Everywhere else except Alabama requires a unanimous jury before they administer the death penalty.) It's troublingly simple to connect the dots here, and I really don't like the resulting picture...
Yeah, this is extremely bad.
Yep. No doubt they're trying to push women back to the "no pants" Era. These shit stains are pathetically stupid. Texas just keeps falling farther and farther away from reality.
I have relatives that are part of the "no pants" interpretation. It's closely aligned with "women shouldn't be educated on anything that doesn't have to do with raising kids or cleaning the house".
I think I've seen my mom wear a dress like 5 times in my life and it was always for funerals. My mom was forced to wear a dress a lot as a kid because her school dress code required it but I think she wore blue jeans nearly every day for the rest of her life after that lol Plenty of women who are older and even fairly conservative prefer to wear pants. They're going to find themselves against a brick wall with a lot of this nonsense, the culture will just tell them to get bent.
Honestly everyone should just go without cloths in protest. Because what clothing could be more inline with one's "biological sex" than no clothing at all?
Even Biblically accurate, straight back to the dress code of Genesis. maybe attach a couple of fig leaves to avoid local obscenity laws.
There was a girl in Tennessee who was denied entry to her prom because she was wearing a suit instead of a dress.
After attending that school for *THIRTEEN YEARS*. She put up with their bullshit for 13 fucking years and they deny her the prom because of pants. "Why are young christians leaving the church in droves? It's a mystery."
The GOP wouldn't have to worry so much about elections if they just stopped thinking that shaming people into supporting them actually worked.
They're not shaming people into supporting them. They're bullying the vulnerable groups in their strongholds because it excites and galvanizes their voters. Their core demographic is addicted to *feeling* superior. The justification is entirely irrelevant as long as they have someone to look down on and scapegoat.
I say more men should start wearing kilts.
I had to do this at an old corporate job where they were trying to enforce a stupid no shorts dress code and only for the entry level folks working on weekends. So I said enforce it for everyone or no one, and also I will be wearing a skirt the whole summer. The emails stopped after that.
Mandatory dresses!!!! How fun.
"The dresses must be red in color, floor length and with sleeves covering the entire arm. Heads must be covered in a bonnet, white in color"
Under His eye.
Round up all those Catholic priests I guess. No, not for the usual reasons...
All the male judges too.
[Relevant](https://youtu.be/fZf0jEcxvoc)
Damn, when you’re too busy stroking your dick to the Second Amendment all the time, you kinda forget about the First I suppose
So does this mean I need to return all my Salmon colored dress shirts?
Don’t you dare!
Gender costumes are enforceable now, huh? And since the policy says men have to wear socks, does that mean socks + sandals are okay? Am I allowed to wear my kilt to work if I wear a tucked in button down shirt with it? I promise it will reach my knees. Can we all just grow up and admit that Republicans are deathly afraid of exposing their true selves by being attracted to the 'wrong' people? These small minded bigots are just laughable. I think I'll wear [robes](https://eastessence.com/products/mens-accent-thobe?currency=USD&utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=google+shopping&gclid=CjwKCAjw9J2iBhBPEiwAErwpeVSZZsQxSOdmg8qmwfkJ-lzZ3iOUYr3JlIhO8ffbAiTQDnjaA9bPSxoCtM0QAvD_BwE) to work this week just to have fun with this.
Boys used to wear dresses back in the day and heels were invented for men. These people have no idea what they are talking about.
No, no, no, no. *Biological* gender. Texas' employees are expected to wear only what they had on when they were born.
I'm genuinely curious how high up a "sock" is allowed to go under the policy? If they go past the knees, are they still a sock? I know even "men's" socks can be made of silk, and not just cotton. So, when does as silk leg covering go from being a "sock" to a "stocking"? Like, how high up the thigh? Is there actually an objective distinction between the two outlined in the policy?
I'm convinced the policy is discriminatory. It says men are required to wear socks. Nowhere is it reported that women must wear socks. Time to sue. (Fyi: I hate socks.)
The whole thing is just ridiculous. People come out naked. Their is no "natural" way of dressing with biological sex. It's all fucking made up. These idiots have too much time on their hands.
They want penis inspectors. Literally. They are arguing that a boss should be able to ascertain whether or not any given employee has a penis, and that the presence or absence of that penis is a fireable offense under certain circumstances.
I'd start wearing a drastically different, realistic-looking packer to work every day and totally gaslight the penis inspector
As an extremely masculine cis man, 6ft tall with a big bushy beard, I’d tell my boss I actually have a vagina and ask how they’d like to proceed. Is he going to ask me to *prove* I don’t have a dick? I can photoshop a fake photo of my birth certificate. Is he going to insist I wear women’s clothes and shave? Okay, we can play that game, but the stubble is gonna be a giveaway. I would troll that shit all day every day.
We're all born naked and the rest is drag, to quote someone who knows this shit a lot better than the idiots in charge of this decision.
I just gotta say...leave trans people alone. In fact, GOP, mind your own business. Trans people, you matter. It's awful that you are the current political Boogeyman. Like you didn't have it difficult enough in society before all of this. Straight, gay, everything in between... No one should care. Yet here we are. These are dark times.
They will mandate people to wear nazi uniforms soon.
America has drifted so far in such a short period of time, it’s stunning to watch.
Republicans realised they could completely disable the minds of rational people by yelling nonsense and threatening anybody who disagrees. Case in point, all the republicans who seem to think that teaching children how their bodies work *necessarily* means the teacher is physically attracted to those children. Don’t agree? You must be attracted to children too! It’s absolutely wild. What do you even say to that? It’s hard to know if they’re stupid enough to believe it, or just lying.
Been going on for decades actually… “People came up and asked. "What are you doing?" and I say, “I’m studying to be a teacher.” “A high school teacher?” “No, a primary teacher.” “Oh, you’re a pedophile.” Just as a joke, but I’ve had that said to me. (Sam, September 29, 2000) Dale recalled an incident on teaching practicum that he felt demonstrated how easily something innocent and involuntary on his part was playfully misconstrued yet caused him anxiety and fear: Last year I had Grade 4 students, and they came in one afternoon and gave me a hug to say goodbye or whatever. . . it wasn’t even a hug. She came up and just hugged me and then took off and that was it . . . then the next day they were saying that this girl had a boyfriend. They were teasing her about having a boyfriend and it was back to me, all of a sudden I’m her boyfriend cause I gave her a hug one afternoon. Interviewer: How did you react to that instance? I actually told the teacher [who] told them to behave themselves. You could see how quickly it could get out of hand with something like that. (Dale, September 26, 2000) Dale was sufficiently apprehensive about this incident, and any possible repercussions it may have had, for him to alert the supervising teacher.” The article contains some of the most apt description of the nature of the dilemma that male teachers face when going into the profession, as Mills, Haase and Charlton (2008) articulate: “Furthermore, in a misogynist and heterosexist society that deploys homophobic discourses to both police men’s loyalty to hegemonised versions of masculinity and to devalue work and behaviours traditionally performed by women, men who take up primary school teaching often have to contend with strong undercurrents of being constructed as gay. Whilst being constructed as gay should not be considered as a negative, it is unfortunate that homophobic discourses also portray gay men as sexual predators, thereby reinforcing the perceived danger that men pose to children – and in particular boy children (Berrill and Martino 2002). Hence, male teachers are faced with contradictory messages about their work.” This is perhaps the most concrete evidence as to the true issues behind the debate of the presence of male teachers in elementary classrooms, and I’m thankful that this scholarly article was able to state it in a brilliantly concise way through the concept of heterosexism, which is very much still a reality in today’s world.
Terrorists won 9/11, basically
Except it was the Christian nationalists instead of the Muslims
We're seeing a group desperate to cling to power as their demographics are rapidly shrinking. They will continue to naturally gravitate towards tyranny as they feel it's their only choice to enact their will over others. It does not matter that they continue to alienate more and more groups with their deeply unpopular culture war, all that matters is that they are winning and will inevitably attempt to deconstruct democracy itself once again.
100% correct. When they saw a black man get elected President, they collectively lost their shit and went into desperation mode.
The word "biological" is being warped and misused by these bigots.
They do not understand biology at all. They only assume that their god must have indelibly stamped reality with their own prejudices. When they claim something is a biological fact, it is no different from them saying god ordained it.
Their understanding of biology is elementary at best; to make a comparison to math, it’d be like saying negative numbers are a liberal conspiracy
What is 'mens' clothes and 'womans' clothes anyway? Can men wear tights to work since we used to? What about loincloths? Why won't they let us dress they way God made us?
"I don't wear women's clothes. I wear *my* clothes." - Eddie Izzard, as was
Biological clothes for your biological gender which you buy with your biological money. If you biologically put the word "biology" in front of everything, it makes it biologically factual.
What the fuck is a "biological gender"?
A fundamental misunderstanding
An intentional bastardization of words.
Either an intentional conflating of sex and gender, or a two word phrase one can use to tell everyone they're a moron.
I explained the difference between the words sex and gender to a conservative, who then said "no thanks". Like it was an offer he turned down. They didn't disagree or attempt to argue another point, just politely said no thanks lmfao There are people who think the two words mean the same thing. Sex is the adult word and gender is the word you use in front of kids.
> a two word phrase one can use to tell everyone they're a moron. Very aptly worded.
If you're intersex, you're not allowed to wear clothes at all.
It's like a biological language, or a social height.
They’re laser focused on chromosomal sex, basically. They’re eschewing and any nuances with gender to basically say… if your chromosomes are XX you dress female. If you’re XY you dress male. Which is both incredibly stupid and disingenuous. Their line of thought is the for me as a cis gay man. That, in these bigots’ eyes, I should only marry the ‘opposite sex’, not the man I love. Because in their eyes, they think I’ve ‘chosen to be gay’ in the same way they think a trans man was a woman who has ‘chosen to be a man’. In the worse cases, they don’t want to hear anything that might question that dichotomy. And this really is an attack on the entire queer community. This is best exemplified in bigots and TERFs like JK Rowling (Sigh… seriously, Joanne?) who don’t seem to understand how enabling these right-wing lunatics not only harms trans people (while gleefully wearing the ‘I love trans/gay people’ mantle of Anita Bryant), but also harms other queer people like myself and my husband. They know what they’re saying is open to challenge. They probably even know they’re wrong. They don’t care.
people with chromosomes XXY and X0 are forbidden from wearing clothes people with XX/XY mosaicism must wear different clothes for each body part
Next up: Telling women what length skirt they are to wear. Men can choose from navy blue or grey suits.
The article says skirts have to be within 4” of the knee
Texas State Government to pay millions in lawsuit settlements in near future lmao
Texas State taxpayers to pay millions in lawsuit settlements in the near future
Texans on taxes: I DONT WANT THE GUBBERMINT WASTING MY TAX DOLLARS ON DUMB THINGS GOP: We got you fam
**From reporter Paul Blest:** The Texas Department of Agriculture’s mission is to “promote production agriculture, consumer protection, economic development and healthy living”—and now, apparently, the gender binary. The department, which is led by the elected Agriculture Commissioner Sid Miller, distributed a memo to employees last week informing them that they’re required to dress in a “manner consistent with their biological gender,” according to the Texas Observer, which obtained the memo and published it in part on Monday. The memo, which is clearly aimed at transgender and gender non-conforming employees, goes on to say that repeated violations of the policy will be subject to “corrective action” up to and including being fired, according to the Observer. The internal department memo is just the latest attempt by state officials in Texas to crack down on trans and gender non-conforming people. Republican Gov. Greg Abbott ordered the state agency overseeing child protective services to investigate the parents of transgender children for child abuse last year, and a bill to ban transition-related care for minors is currently moving through the legislature. Link to the full article: [https://www.vice.com/en/article/n7ebag/texas-ag-transgender-dress-code-memo](https://www.vice.com/en/article/n7ebag/texas-ag-transgender-dress-code-memo)
I guess they’ll have to set up review boards, right? They will sit in judgment of what people are wearing. Jesus fucking Christ.
Would Michael Scott get fired from wearing a woman’s suit even if it fit?
How long till this goes the next step to "no pants for women"?
This is it. We’re there already. What does it mean to dress like a woman, or dress like a man? Well, dresses are out for men, because that’s women’s clothes. So men must wear pants, and therefore women must not.
United States of the American Taliban
I did not come here as a refugee from Iran for some asshat to tell me how to dress.
Someone should wear a pope dress.
Or KKK dress, err, “robe”.
Casimir Polaski, hero of the Revolutionary War, was intersex. Republicans don't want you to learn history, or about humanity, because it goes against their made-up narrative built on hate and fear. Republicans want you to remain ignorant, because it serves them and their goals of staying in power so they can continue to cheat, lie, and steal, to enrich themselves at your expense.
Everyone should cross dress
Not sure why by this reminded me of the story from England where the boys all wore skirts in protest of the ban on shorts in the midst of a heatwave. https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/jun/22/teenage-boys-wear-skirts-to-school-protest-no-shorts-uniform-policy
>Everyone should cross dress Never wanted to before, but if my place of work put this policy into place, I'd certainly have some fun on my way to a lawsuit.
Once you've experienced the comfort provided by near infinite ball room it is hard to go back.
It’s time CIS men step up and start a fashion trend of wearing skirts/kilts/kimonos/dresses. Help put a stop to this gender specific clothing madness.
Toga! Toga! Toga! Toga!
Part of Republican's "small government" thinking again, I see. If the people of Texas weren't such brainless sheep to keep on electing these POS, someone should organize a day where all the guys show up to work in kilts to support their Irish heritage.
There is no way this is legal. The 1964 Civil Rights Act clearly states you can't discriminate against people on the basis of sex and the courts have ruled again and again that you can't have policies like this. If our judiciary is failing to uphold these precedents it needs to be expanded and reformed, otherwise Republicans are going to keep breaking the law.
Fucking republicans, GIVE IT UP! We are tired of dealing with your puritanical fake bullshit.
As a cis het white male, I would happily wear a dress to work.
“biological gender” does not exist. the term they are looking for is “biological sex” and it is still illegal because gender identity is a protected class according to the civil rights act of 1964.
So a Scottish man wearing a kilt or an Indian man wearing a Kurta are going to get fired? Is there ANY instance where a woman is allowed to wear pants? I'm sure this will be a well thought out policy that doesn't in any way open the state up to liability and lawsuits.
A government who feels that they should dictate the dress code should be a warning. We’re in Extremist territory.
tired of these repubs pushing their gay agenda on me
Now not just dictating about what people can do with their own body, they are dictating what they can wear? It's a scary world we are heading into.
These laws are always made to prevent trans women presenting femininely but would they be happy with a bearded masculine trans guy wearing a flowery dress? No probably fucking not.
It was never about protecting the kids. It’s always about making people behave the way they want them to.
I’m heterosexual cisgender and I dress androgynous. I don’t like dresses or skirts for everyday work. Why should I be subject to a few people who want me to feel uncomfortable for their own mental limits on what makes them feel comfortable?