|
Korean Job Discussion Forums "The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
Posted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 4:09 am Post subject: Transgender Apointee Pisses Off the Religious Right |
|
|
Article here.
Quote: |
Amanda Simpson, who was named by President Obama to be senior technical adviser for the Commerce Department's Bureau of Industry and Security, has worked in the field for over 30 years. But prominent figures on the religious right are claiming that she was picked only as part of some transsexual agenda.
"Is there going to be a transgender quota now in the Obama administration?" asked Peter LaBarbera, president of the anti-gay group Americans for Truth. "How far does this politics of gay and transgender activism go? Clearly this is an administration that is pandering to the gay lobby."
"Simpson's nomination was forwarded through to President Obama by a gay activist group, making it appear that this appointment of a male-to-female 'transgender' activist to a high level Commerce Department position to be payback to his far-left base for their political support," a spokeswoman for Focus on the Family said in statement.
Matt Barber, associate dean at Jerry Fallwell's Liberty University, said the appointment "boggles the mind" and said that while African-Americans might deserve special treatment, transgender people don't.
"This isn't like appointing an African-American in order to try to provide diversity and right some kind of discriminatory wrong," he said. "This is about political correctness."
Of course, as Steven Benen points out, none of these angry conservatives even consider that Simpson was simply the best candidate for the job.
Simpson herself anticipated this reaction: "[There will be] questions like: Is this a token? Are you here to do a job or just to fill a quota or appease other people? In that regard it makes it a bit more difficult," she said. "I'm sure I will have to do and intend to do a far superior job than any other person. But I'm sure I will always be second-guessed."
David Brody at the Christian Broadcasting Network also predicted a right-wing backlash and argued that the right thing to do would be to not hire transsexuals, for that reason: "The transgender thing doesn't play well with millions of conservative Evangelicals. ... I understand President Obama won't be after die hard conservative Evangelicals in 2012 but let's remember that moves like this don't play well with the million of conservative Independent voters and Catholics who will be up for grabs again in 2012 as well."
Transgender rights supporters, however, are cheered that Obama didn't let fear of bigotry dictate his choice. "If you look at the job she's taking and at her r�sum�, this is not a quota appointee," Mara Keisling, of the National Center for Transgender Equality, told the New York Post. "She's unquestionably qualified for the job. The story is . . . not that [Obama] appointed one of us but that finally we have an administration for which that's not a deal breaker." |
Why is it so hard for these people to simply accept someone who has worked in her field for 30 years is qualified? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
geldedgoat
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
|
Posted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 4:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
The only thing that really bothers me about the appointee is this part:
Quote: |
Simpson's nomination was forwarded through to President Obama by a gay activist group[...] |
Wtf does gay activism have to do with the Burea of Industry and Security? If he/she's the best candidate for the job, great, give it to him/her, but why is a lobby group like that getting involved with it? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
NovaKart
Joined: 18 Nov 2009 Location: Iraq
|
Posted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 5:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
I don't like the idea of someone being given a job on the basis of quotas, diversity or pressure from an activist group. That said, the Christian groups who oppose Obama's selection of Simpson are not doing it on the basis of their opposition to affirmative action. One person even said he wouldn't care if Obama had appointed a black person. So this is just a case of Christians against a tranny. If this is the most Obama does for gay activists then the Christian right should be grateful. Somehow I think this is about the most gays can expect from Obama. He hasn't made any promises on gay marriage/civil unions as far as I'm aware. So he's just throwing us a bone by promoting a tranny. Even that's too much for some people. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007 Location: retired
|
Posted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 8:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
geldedgoat wrote: |
The only thing that really bothers me about the appointee is this part:
Quote: |
Simpson's nomination was forwarded through to President Obama by a gay activist group[...] |
Wtf does gay activism have to do with the Burea of Industry and Security? If he/she's the best candidate for the job, great, give it to him/her, but why is a lobby group like that getting involved with it? |
What does the Bureau of Industyr and Security have to do with either industry and security? A gay activist group? Do Obama's old buddies on the South Side know who he is hanging with? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Gopher

Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
Posted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 8:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
Fox wrote: |
Why is it so hard for these people to simply accept someone who has worked in her field for 30 years is qualified? |
This is dishonest.
They are not simply selecting someone qualified with 30 years' experience. They are looking for someone they can use to advance transgender politics.
So those who object are not objecting with respect to this person's 30 years' experience, one way or another. They are responding to a transgender political offensive in national politics.
This is a fair political battlefield. If the administration wants to wave this person's transgender status in our faces, we get to respond to it. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Location: Established in 1994
|
Posted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 3:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
geldedgoat wrote: |
The only thing that really bothers me about the appointee is this part:
Quote: |
Simpson's nomination was forwarded through to President Obama by a gay activist group[...] |
Wtf does gay activism have to do with the Burea of Industry and Security? If he/she's the best candidate for the job, great, give it to him/her, but why is a lobby group like that getting involved with it? |
"Best" is the superlative form. Is it always clear who is the one best qualified for a job? My estimate is that there are usually several equally qualified, with one person being slightly more qualified in one aspect--administration, for example, and a different person having a small edge in another angle--technical background, for example and so on.
I'm curious how anyone gets considered for a position. I suspect pretty much all candidates get support from one or another lobby. It's just in this rare case that we were informed of the support group. Perhaps as a way of politicizing the appointment? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
Posted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 7:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Gopher wrote: |
Fox wrote: |
Why is it so hard for these people to simply accept someone who has worked in her field for 30 years is qualified? |
This is dishonest.
They are not simply selecting someone qualified with 30 years' experience. They are looking for someone they can use to advance transgender politics. |
That would be ridiculously hard to prove. How do you know that, despite the fact that the individual was put forward by a gay activist group, that she wasn't evaluated and found to be the best candidate entirely despite that? Let's be realistic: no matter how this individual was selected, if they had been selected, there would have been an uproar. No matter what, it would have been assumed by the Right that she was selected because of her transgendered status, rather than because of her merit. Nothing could have immunized her to such claims.
Gopher wrote: |
So those who object are not objecting with respect to this person's 30 years' experience, one way or another. They are responding to a transgender political offensive in national politics. |
Hiring a transgendered individual for a government post amounts to a transgender political ofensive? So trangendered individuals should simply have been barred from political positions forever, lest a political offensive take place?
Gopher wrote: |
This is a fair political battlefield. If the administration wants to wave this person's transgender status in our faces, we get to respond to it. |
And evidently the response from your team -- and yes, you've made it eminently clear that you consider this a team sport of sorts -- is that, "Oooh we're angry!" So yes, you do get to respond to it; I'm not criticizing anyone for responding. However, how you choose to respond is quite indicative of both yourselves as individuals, and the culture on your side of the political spectrum, and don't be surprised when some of us respond to that. You for example chose to respond to this by supporting the people attacking the hiring of a highly experienced individual simply because they are transgendered. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Adventurer

Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
Posted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 8:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I am sure Obama could have had many candidates for the position, and he could have, then, chosen a non-transgender candidate. If she was forwarded by a gay rights lobby, then the person didn't simply apply for the job as a qualified person. This is an appointee. Someone else could have been appointed who would have been very qualified. I think this was done for political reasons, whether you support trangendered people or not. People may say that it fits with EEOC ideas of promoting and going against discrimination based on sex, gender, religion, race. However, others are saying that she/he is not being discriminated based on gender, but for becoming transgendered. This is risky considering that gay marriage has been defeated in many sates based on many ballot initiatives. Some may say that if you shock in the American public and put this in their face, they will get used to it. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
Posted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 8:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Adventurer wrote: |
If she was forwarded by a gay rights lobby, then the person didn't simply apply for the job as a qualified person. |
This is a totally invalid if/then, because it doesn't follow at all.
Adventurer wrote: |
This is an appointee. Someone else could have been appointed who would have been very qualified. |
This individual has 30 years of experience in their field. How much more qualification would you insist upon before you start calling her very qualified? You're just assuming there was a better candidate who was sidelined because of her. Can you tell me who that person was? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Gopher

Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
Posted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 8:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ridiculously hard to prove?
What part? That Democrats and especially the leftist base -- the one B. Obama needs to continue cultivating through 2012 -- think primarily along the lines of compensatory politics and especially affirmative action rather than merit, a mere secondary or tertiary consideration, if it even appears at all, in political appointments? That is hard to prove?
Ha.
How about appointing someone based on merit, whatever their sexual preference, indeed leaving their sexual preferences and politics out of it entirely, and save the chip-on-the-shoulder in-your-face assertiveness for junior varsity team sports and cheerleaders?
Last edited by Gopher on Wed Jan 06, 2010 8:54 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
Posted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 8:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Gopher wrote: |
Ridiculously hard to prove?
What part? That Democrats and especially the leftist base -- the one B. Obama needs to continue cultivating through 2012 -- think primarily along the lines of affirmative action rather than merit, a mere secondary or tertiary consideration, in political appointments? That is hard to prove? |
Hard to prove that this individual was not hired primarily on merit. Step one in proving it would be demonstrating she lacked sufficient merit to deserve the post. Feel free to begin.
Gopher wrote: |
How about appointing someone based on merit ... |
Prove she lacks sufficient merit to deserve the post. If you cannot, you have zero justification to make the claim that she was not hired on merit. The first transgender hiree would inevitably have faced claims they were only hired based on their transgender status, so such claims are not sufficient evidence in and of themselves.
What about this woman do you feel makes her insufficiently meritorious to deserve the post? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Gopher

Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
Posted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 9:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Fox, you misrepresent my position there and have put words into my mouth. Further, exchanging with you follows a predictable path: you are another here with last-word-itis. Frankly, not tonight. I have stated my views. Dismiss them as usual and equate me with "the religious right." Cheers. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
Posted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 9:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Gopher wrote: |
Fox wrote: |
Why is it so hard for these people to simply accept someone who has worked in her field for 30 years is qualified? |
This is dishonest.
They are not simply selecting someone qualified with 30 years' experience. They are looking for someone they can use to advance transgender politics.
|
Okay, Gopher.
What qualifications would a transgender candidate need to convince you they were selected independently of their transgender status? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Gopher

Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
Posted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 9:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
How about the transgender lobby stay out of it, pressuring politicians, issuing press releases, etc., for one thing?
I grow tired of groups such as National Center for Transgender Equality running victory laps. I know this wholly goes against the grain here -- most people here are absolutely enamored of compensatory politics.
But if it is about merit, how about we limit the process and conversation to merit? I guess that remains too much to ask at this time and place.
And I love the part here where people are asserting that transgender offensives in political appointments and employment is a mere imagination of "the religious right," or that their lobby is not actively pressuring government officials hard on every level.
http://www.transequality.org/
Last edited by Gopher on Wed Jan 06, 2010 9:11 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Fox

Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
Posted: Wed Jan 06, 2010 9:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Gopher wrote: |
Fox, you misrepresent my position there and have put words into my mouth. |
No, I haven't. You have asserted this individual was hired not on merit but rather to further a "transgender political offensive," and expressed a wish that people would be hired on merit. I asked you to show she lacked sufficient merit to have been hired on merit alone, such that her selection must have been part of said "transgender political offensive." I'm using your own words here. You said it was part of a transgender political offensive. You bemoaned the lack of consideration of merit in the selection. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|