There is an interesting new filing out of Washington state where a nonbinary flight attendant, Justin Wetherell, is suing Alaska Airlines. Wetherell alleges the airline’s uniform and presentation requirements discriminate against nonbinary and gender-fluid employees.
Wetherell, who uses the pronouns they, them, and their, is proceeding under the Washington Law Against Discrimination, which prohibits discrimination against employees based on their sexual orientation, including “gender expression or identity.” The complaint states:
“Justin’s gender expression is fluid, meaning that Justin’s external manifestations of gender are not exclusively masculine or feminine. Consistent with their gender identity and gender expression, Justin dresses and grooms in a manner that is not associated with traditional, rigid male or female dress or grooming standards. For example, Justin maintains facial hair, has long hair, wears makeup, and dresses in a manner not typical of the gender binary.”
The airline’s uniform conditions are similar to other companies and detail “masculine” or “feminine” standards including presentation of hair, jewelry, and makeup.
Wetherell requested accommodations, such as being able to wear heels that mix “male” and “female” uniforms. That request was denied by the Alaska Airlines. The airline recently allowed more flexibility including greater leeway on hair styles, tattoos, and piercings.
Wetherell first filed a complaint with the Washington Human Rights Commission in 2020. According to the ACLU (which is representing Wetherell), the commission “uncovered evidence to support Justin’s claims” and that there was “adverse employment action of being required to dress and groom in a manner that is not consistent with [Justin’s] gender identity and gender expression.’”
The Virgin Atlantic just issued new gender neutral uniform policies.
You can read the complaint here.
I found Wetherell’s mom online. Makes sense now.
The mental patient should be fitted for a cozy straight jacket.
Human sex is binary. Some aspects of gender (i.e. sex-correlated attributes) can be simulated. The lawsuit is about trans/social (e.g. so-called “transvestite”) narcissistic indulgence.
Binary is a base-2 number system invented by Gottfried Leibniz that’s made up of only two numbers or digits: 0 (zero) and 1 (one). This numbering system is the basis for all binary code, which is used to write digital data such as the computer processor instructions used every day. Humans are not digital and thus, the term cannot apply to humans at all. So stop playing up to these cucks.
Binary applies to anything that has only two states.
Just as digital computers can rarely have a bit that exists in a state that is neither 0 or 1 the same is true of humans.
Just as that is rare in computers it is rare in humans.
We still say that humans and computers are binary.
There are seven classifications of life on this planet they are kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, species.
In the mammalian species there ARE only two genders.
You are welcome to see this aspect in person, it is called a zoo, you should visit one. Though I have never seen a hyena trying to be a lion…
What you do have is a mental disorder called gender dysphoria, you are likely a pedophile as well.
I beleive you replied to the wrong comment.
“[T[he term [“binary”] cannot apply to humans at all.”
Pedantic much?
As with countless scientific and mathematical terms (e.g., an *electric* personality), binary has a perfectly legitimate, extended use (a metaphor) — as is: Red wine or white wine is a binary choice.
Fight this Alaska. If you bow to this insanity, I have a right to find another airline, and I will.
The airline that can bend over and do themselves really good
That is your choice – just as the airline can choose a dress code.
I suspect most customers are more interested in getting to their destination safely.
That cuts both ways.
Allowing mentally unstable people into positions where they can abuse control over situations and harm people lessens the likelihood of people arriving safely to their destinations
And if the airlines do that and something bad happens – they will be liable.
Further you can choose not to fly on an airline you do not think is safe.
I fully support this airline having a strict dresscode.
I am OK if the choose NOT to.
I support the freedom of each of us to make choices as we wish, and others to make choices based on our choices.
What I do not want is government stepping in.
“. . . the Washington Law Against Discrimination . . .”
So-called nondiscrimination laws in fact discriminate against a business owner’s right to set the terms of his business — be those terms a trade with customers or a contract with employees. His property, his business — his rules. That is what the *right* to property means.
If you don’t like those rules, shop or work elsewhere. There is no such thing as the “right” to be a customer. And there is certainly no such thing as the “right” to force your freakish behavior on others.
RE:”. . . the Washington Law Against Discrimination . et al..” All of this airy persiflage not withstanding, and echoed herein by many has as much value as standing in a windstorm and screaming for someone to open the outside door to admit the weather beaten. The name of the game in movements such as these is to wag the dog. This lot, and others of their ilk, scream ‘democracy’ which, if held true to definition and practice, would place the collective ‘them’ in the minority and pray render their efforts null and void. Such, unfortunately, is not the case.in a culture now transformed to defer to the minority so as to provide satisfaction and relief from the insanity of admitted guilt and the virtue signaling of the penitent.
Was that bloviating or just a random word generator excercise?
Sodom and Gomorrah didn’t work out well the last time. This time, the world is screwed. Too much mental illness going around.
Sick people need help medically.
Perhaps seeking “help” in Canadian medicine is the answer.
“Just as you ‘expect everyone else to bed to fit’ [your] insanity, apparently.”
Nope to not ask anything of you – beyond that you do not act immorally – that you do not use force aka government, to impose positive demands on others, absent justifying that use of force. That you do not constrain the liberty of individuals to do as they please so long as they cause no direct harm to others. That you do not define harm to you as the existance of others and their excercise of their rights.
Not looking to get you to bend to fit anything – beyond the actual social contract.
You expect that I and everyone else respect your freedom – and so long as you confine your freedom to yourself – nearly everyone else is fine with that.
Have whatever web site you want. Bake whatever cake you want. buy whatever insurance you want, do whatever you want to your own body, have sex with any consenting adult you want, in whatever way they consent to. …..
When what you want for yourself, imposes an obligation to act on others, and you impose that by force – government, there are only a few instances in which that is moral. Justified.
If passengers simply did the following, flying on airliners might be greatly less unpleasant:
For flight attendants:
So in this case if somehow flight attendants could successfully enforce all the passenger rules above, they can wear a gorilla suit for all I care.
How about NO ALCOHOL served on the plane and also none served in airport bars and restaurants. That would make flying safer from idiots who can’t handle their booze.
Gorilla suits are offensive to women experiencing hirsutism. Plus, they’re racist.
Try again.
What do you mean when you say a gorilla suit is ‘racist’?
If you want to be offended – something will always offend you.
Grow up.
Right. My comment was intended to be facetious. To make the point you make that someone can find a way to be offended by anything.
We have unwritten rules, or customs, about how we expect people to appear in public. I stipulate these customs are fluid and change gradually over time. However, in this case there is even a written corporate policy about the attire the employer expects its employees to wear. A specific uniform based on biological gender.
We can make reasonable guesses about why the airline has this policy. Maybe it believes requiring this bland uniform based on biological gender will offend the fewest number of customers. Maybe it believes the uniform conveys a sense of professionalism which it hopes will instill confidence in customers and result in repeat business.
IMO, it doesn’t really matter why it has these policies. It is taking the financial risk to run the airline. It’s management’s job to manage the assets and its employees in a way to maximize the chance for success. If management believes the way to be successful is to have employees show up to work wearing gorilla suits, or for males to show up wearing the uniform the company has designated for females, then fine. That’s the strategy they’ve chosen and they’ll have to live with the consequences – good or bad.
Look, I understand the work uniform this freak is expected to wear absolutely restricts his individualism and his liberty. Tough. Everybody’s conduct is regulated in a civilized society. Either by government, societal norms, or employer standards. If he finds it unbearable to wear the male uniform then he should quit. The dispute should not be resolved in a way that forces the employer to conform to his abnormal fetishes.
The why of these rules is a distinct issue.
The employee is not the boss. If you want to make your own rules – start your own business.
If you do that – you will learn rapidly that you have to conform yourself to client expectations.
So there is no escape. Unless you want to go off in the woods and grow your own food.
It does not matter if the rules have rational justification – some do, some don’t.
It is not your business, and many people beyond you will pay the consequences of your choices if they impact that business.
If you want to be creative about your attire – become a fashion designer.
Also…the middle seat gets both armrests, so you on the aisle and window need to mind your elbows.
“. . . flying on airliners might be greatly less unpleasant:”
Action item #1: Get rid of the mall cops groping innocent citizens.
RE:” Upon entering the aircraft, stow your luggage and get out the aisle..” On a recent trip to NJ from FL aboard a United Arilines flight, the on-board crew instructed passengers to put their carry-ons in the first available overhead space they saw. Bad enough the bins aren’t designed to accommodate three cases per row for the rows they span. Now its damned be your seat number, first come first serve in the zone, with more than one case, and don’t be late to arrive otherwise out of luck.