[ewr24]

Probably not as old (white?) male. But there is a simple way to increase your diversity.

You could start identifying as a woman, it is just a verbal identification, no other changes are required. This way you would also become lesbian.

In some countries you can legally change your race, by religious conversion (Sikht in UK). Again, religion is just a verbal identification.

[antiufo]

That's some cartman-level trolling. It's of course not my job to distinguish true and false trans people ("no true Scotsman") but if you're a stereotypical male in all senses, it makes very little sense to use that label. (Disclosure, genderqueer trans woman here)

[ewr24]

I am serious.

There is no such thing as "stereotypical male in all senses", everyone is gender-fluid . Most men were called a "pussy" or "not a real man" at some point.

People come from different backgrounds. In my country people often changed their religion or race, not doing so would bring unpleasant consequences. For example my parents become atheists to get a decent jobs. Some people are also distracted by feeding family.

"Being diverse" is simply just another job requirement for some people.

I personally spend one year at military outpost in mountains. I would be very happy to give-up my "male privilege", and wear tutu with tiara on public for that year. Work visa in US would be similar case...

As trans woman I would be outraged, that I am treated as lesser woman (exclusion from sport events, included in Selective Service, exclusion from women's prisons...). Not that more people choose to identify as trans.

[antiufo]

> There is no such thing as "stereotypical male in all senses", everyone is gender-fluid. Most men were called a "pussy" or "not a real man" at some point.

Pardon, in all or most senses. The point is that masculinity is often seen as an arms race. Most men feel outraged if/when they are called pussies (or compared/associated with something seen as feminine/"weak"). Other people have opted out of that arms race and, whether they are male or female, don't feel obliged to obey the gender roles about their clothing/style/personality (or their bodies).

> everyone is gender-fluid

Say that to your average transphobic/antifeminist "activist". Do I fear being discriminated by people like them in the job/housing market, or harassed? Yes. Does it matter whether they are themselves people without self-acceptance? Not much. Just like it makes little difference to be discriminated about homosexuality by a fully heterosexual person, or by a repressed bisexual/homosexual person.

> military outpost

Yeah I think military draft should be either mandatory for all genders, or optional for all.

Edit: formatting

[ewr24]

There is sort of heroic stereotype of "real men" from the past. And today most men have some feminine traits, and do not fit well into that stereotype. Here is sort of example: http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/rod-eccles/where-have-all-...

The point is the fact they were called "pussy", not the outrage. There was some feminine trait for which they were called 'pussy".

> Other people have opted out of that arms race and

Majority of people have opted from traditional gender roles. Marriage is at all time low.

> don't feel obliged to obey the gender roles about their clothing/style/personality (or their bodies).

I assume you are talking about LGBT, more specifically trans. By being trans you are expected to follow another gender stereotype (clothing, style, personality). All trans are expected to overcompensate; wear similar makeup, hairstyle, have mild depression, have certain political opinion. Also being trans should be a result of deep existentialist crisis...

50 years old guy with a beard, truck, wife and kids. Guy who become trans for some trivial reason (job, avoid draft), does not fit well into this gender stereotype. And he should not be a trans (but in theory he has a right to be).

> Say that to your average transphobic/antifeminist "activist".

It depends how you phrase it. Those groups have a folklore about gender-fluid women (hairy feminist). And most guys will agree they are not "men enough" to marry.

> Do I fear being discriminated by people like them in the job/housing market, or harassed?

Guys after divorce have a similar problem. It depends a lot on a vibe.

Rest of the comment is pretty loaded. Feminist interests are not always aligned with trans-gender interests (military service, prison rape..)

[antiufo]

> Majority of people have opted from traditional gender roles. Marriage is at all time low.

Machismo and sexism still play a significant role, especially in some cultures. But still you can't of course compare the discrimination/harassment received by trans people to those of unmarried, straight cis people.

> All trans are expected to overcompensate; wear similar makeup

This makes me wonder about the actual number of trans people you know IRL

> gender-fluid women (hairy feminist)

Straw man?

> Feminist interests are not always aligned with trans-gender interests (military service, prison rape..)

Are you talking about gender equality (eg. military service for all or none, feminism) vs gender-segregated rules/facilities (eg. no mandatory military service for trans, in addition to cis, women)?

The fact that prisons are divided by gender is because it's unfortunately well known that there exists a group of people that is statistically more prone to violence and harassment towards the other half of the population (I'm talking about men and women). Trans women are statistically much closer to this latter population, so it definitely makes sense not to include them with the first group.

[collyw]

Have a look at the comments in a Guardian article on trans-gender issues. Many of them say pretty much what the OP did.

[alimw]

Better idea: never look at the comments under any Guardian article.

[cloudjacker]

In the United States age is a protected class over 40 years old.

[Yoric]

Question from overseas: what's a "protected class"?

[bmh100]

This refers to a category of person protected by the Civil Rights Act of 1964[1], Title VII, as extended by other laws over time. It "prohibits discrimination by covered employers on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin". Those of age 40+ years are covered specifically by the "Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967". In other words, "age of 40 or more years" is a "protected class".

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_Discrimination_in_Employme...

[tominous]

I'm curious as to whether these laws make a positive difference in practice.

If someone is truly racist/sexist/ageist then they could probably invent a lawful excuse for their hiring behaviour anyway. On the other hand, if they are rational then (a) they would already benefit from hiring these workers cheaply because the demand is lower, so they would win in the market, and (b) the discrimination laws would increase the expected cost due to the increased potential for lawsuits.

It reminds me of the recent Linux discussion about how lawsuits are poisonous to the community and cause companies to avoid participating. [1]

Does anyone have any empirical data on the actual outcomes of these laws?

[1] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/ksummit-discuss/...

[moduspwnens14]

Oh they make a difference. Young white heterosexual males are now even better to hire than before because you can fire them without the risk of a lawsuit if things go sour. There's no risk! We get our foot in the door easier than ever! Thanks, Civil Rights Act!

[dalke]

How would you measure the effectiveness?

I think they have, based on reading through a dozen or two discrimination court cases, the EEOC guidelines (the EEOC "is a federal agency that administers and enforces civil rights laws against workplace discrimination", quoting Wikipedia), and comparing historical accounts of the workplace environment to the modern one. (For example, the detailed EEOC policy guide on sexual harassment is at https://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/currentissues.html . See https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/age.cfm for an overview of the age related issues.) Plus many offices have EEOC training so people are aware that these laws and restrictions exists.

Your point about finding a "lawful excuse" is a bit of an oxymoron. If it's lawful then it's not a violation of the relevant civil rights laws, so it's not really an excuse.

People do use an excuse which they think is legal, and would be legal if the person affected weren't part of a protected class. (For example, Disney had a costume policy that employees were not allowed to have a beard. Sikhs wear a beard as a reminder of their commitment to their faith. This gives a protected status that does not apply to most beard-wearing people. See http://money.cnn.com/2015/07/10/news/sikh-turban-beard-disne... .)

However, most employers don't really know the relevant laws, and go more on what they think is justifiable rather than what is actually legal. That's why there are successful lawsuits.

Regarding rationality, people simply are not 100% rational. The last decade or two of behavioral psychology has convinced me of that. If people are rational, then why do you think discrimination exists at all?

Otherwise, if you don't believe that discrimination exists, then I think it's pointless to continue any conversation.

You ask for empirical data. That's of course a hard thing for many laws, with gun control laws, minimum wage laws, and education policies like charter schools being three of the more notoriously debated.

My experience when I see people ask for empirical data is that no matter what evidence I can provide, it's insufficient. That is, they use it as a way to externalize their doubts, without saying what level of data would overcome their objections.

I'm not saying you are like this, I've just been burned too many times by others doing this. So before I look for empirical evidence on this topic, can you point to other social policies you think there is sufficient empirical data to justify them? What would valid empirical data look like to you?

[tominous]

Thanks, I appreciate your points: (a) that in many cases discrimination laws have resulted in a positive outcome for the person discriminated against, (b) that the modern workplace is better than in the past and (c) that people are trained on the relevant laws, which presumably influences behaviour in a positive way.

I can't argue with point (a) because that's obviously true. But as with the Linux/SFC case I mentioned, sometimes a win is not worth the wider cost. The risk of a licensing lawsuit causes companies to shy away from free software. Does the risk of a discrimination lawsuit cause managers to shy away from protected classes?

Point (b) is also true but we don't know if it's due to the laws, or due to the general change in society that prompted the laws in the first place. Yes this is a hard question. I was hoping there might be some natural experiments out there: similar jurisdictions with different laws or different timings.

Point (c) is interesting. You say that many offices are trained on the law, but then shortly afterwards you say that most employers don't know the relevant laws. In addition, we don't know whether the training improves the situation. For example, a recent Australian Defence Force study [1] suggested that "The level of anti-Muslim sentiment among individuals who have received cultural sensitivity training is, if anything, higher than among those who have not" (with caveats about sampling bias, but in the end leaning towards "no relevant differences" in the sample groups).

It would be interesting to see any similar studies regarding attitudes before and after anti-discrimination training in the workplace. Are managers more or less likely to hire from a protected class after such training?

My point about lawful excuses and rationality is that people who are truly discriminatory will find ways to get around the law, so there will be minimal positive impact, while people who are rational will find that the law disincentives hiring from a protected class due to the increased risk.

[1] http://www.army.gov.au/~/media/Army/Our%20future/Publication...

[bmh100]

"Inventing a lawful excuse" is covered under the concept of "disparate impact"[1]. Basically, if an employer ends up discriminating against a protected class indirectly, it is still a violation. This even includes tests that seemed appropriate and in good faith at the time. I remember a story from a college professor where a company had instituted an intelligence test for a certain position. While intelligence was a justifiable qualification for the position, the test itself had an inherent racial bias. The company was therefore forced to find a new means of testing intelligence without a disparate impact.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disparate_impact

[codeonfire]

The government defines certain classes of people and if you are not in that class the law will do nothing to stop discrimination against you. Many types of discrimination are legal. For instance movie studios can refuse to hire a black or Hispanic person to play a real life white person. People under 40 are not in a protected class for jobs.