No Minnesotan considers holding a job to be a special privilege.
Work is making a living—a simple matter of survival in today’s economy.
Minnesota’s competitive labor market demands the highest levels of
achievement from employees. This is the standard, quality job
performance, by which all employees are judged. What the 1993 Human
Rights Amendment to the
Minnesota Human Rights Act does is to make certain that this standard—job
performance—is the only measure by which all Minnesotans are judged at
the workplace. The same ought to apply, no more and no less, for
transgender Minnesotans.
Transgender Minnesotans
We Minnesotans are a smorgasbord of humanity. We are all unique—with
talents and shortcomings all our own. The same holds true for
transgender Minnesotans. Transgender individuals are our neighbors,
friends, and family members. Transgender Minnesotans are corporate
executives, steelworkers, teachers, attorneys, machinists, police
officers, and even the Deputy Mayor of Saint Paul.
But in at least one regard, the need to make a living, Minnesotans
are all the same. Opponents of workplace fairness often use terms like
"special rights" in an attempt to confuse the issue. What are these
"special rights" that the 1993 Human Rights Amendment supposedly grants
transgender Minnesotans? The 1993 act guarantees equality under the law
in housing, public accommodations, and employment. Is buying a house one
can afford a "special right"? Is being hired on the basis of job
qualifications, eating dinner at a restaurant, having access to public
services, or being evaluated on the basis of job performance so terribly
"special"? It is difficult to explain to most Minnesotans how these
constitute any special privilege. These really are just the basic
economic opportunities and conveniences of life most Minnesotans are
able to take for granted.
The 1993 Human Rights Amendment places no unreasonable demands on
Minnesota’s businesses—it neither creates hiring quotas nor reserves
jobs for transgender Minnesotans, nor does it prevent dismissal for
reasons related to actual job performance. The continued success of the
1993 act after six years proves that it is no extra burden: our economy
has continued to prosper while, at the same time, state law has
guaranteed transgender Minnesotans an equal opportunity to participate.
Forcing transgender Minnesotans out of the workplace and onto the
welfare rolls just is not good business sense.
What Does Fairness Mean?
The only thing the 1993 act requires is basic fairness and
appropriate accommodations. This is not difficult to achieve and most
businesses across Minnesota have easily been able to comply with the
1993 act. But what does workplace fairness mean? For Minnesota
businesses this means hiring employees according to their
qualifications, ensuring access to appropriate facilities at the work
site, and evaluating employees based upon job performance.
Overcoming Myths
Unfortunately, a lot of myths have been circulated about transgender
Minnesotans and the 1993 Human Rights Act. These are simple scare
tactics—nothing more. Experience over several years with the 1993 act
has proven that fairness in the workplace is achievable when the
employer chooses to make a minimal effort.
The issue here is not who is a "real" man or a "real" woman. Gender
identity is not something the law or an employer determines. Rather,
this is a question for every Minnesotan in his or her own life.
Likewise, the issue is not sex. Transgender Minnesotans show up at the
office every day to do their jobs, not to seek out sexual encounters.
Every state in the union has laws protecting against sexual harassment;
these laws remain fully in effect in all cases. This issue is not even
one of enforcing a "politically correct" standard. No one expects to be
liked or appreciated by everyone, and transgender Minnesotans are the
same. The workplace is not the playground: nobody cares who likes
whom—so long as employees work in a professional manner, the job gets
done. For all employers, this is the bottom line.
The real issue at stake in the 1993 Human Rights Amendment is simply
the right to make a living. Protecting against gender identity
discriminations is the responsibility of the state of Minnesota, to
ensure that transgender Minnesotans have the same opportunities to excel
as do all Minnesotans.
Key Issues To Remember
- The 1993 Human Rights Amendment works. After several years’
experience under the 1993 act, Minnesota’s economy continues to
prosper while guaranteeing everyone an opportunity to participate.
- Forcing transgender Minnesotans out of the workplace and onto the
welfare rolls just is not good business sense.
- The 1993 Human Rights Amendment does not authorize quotas or
hiring preferences. It only requires fairness in hiring and promotion
and access to appropriate facilities at the work site. Minnesota
businesses have been able to meet these standards with minimal effort.
- The standard imposed by the 1993 Human Rights Amendment is not
"political correctness" but job performance. Private opinions
are private; the only thing required at any Minnesota workplace is
professionalism.
- Attacks on transgender Minnesotans and the 1993 act are not about
actual workplace questions. These attacks are a cynical attempt to
identify and isolate what anti-human rights organizations view as a
"weak link" in the GLBT community.
- Fairness in the workplace is a Minnesota tradition. The real issue
with the transgender Minnesotans and the 1993 act is the right to make
a living.
|
