Paizo - Care to rebuttal?


Paizo General Discussion

251 to 300 of 542 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

It does matter. So if the state recognizes the transgender person as male then what any kind of trip where they stay together even if they agreed causes possible harassment issues that company will not risk having.

Also based on saying that to site the federal guidelines. They do not do it for same reason I stated above. There are too many issues to mention on having male and female co workers stay together. If you think this is false ask any HR or HR lawyer and see what they say.

As far as the state law goes. I do not know how to explain it differently. It all comes down to does the state recognize the transgender persons self identification as a women or does the state or maybe if the state does not have any laws concerning this they would be recognized as man. Is there anything that legally recognizes that self identification.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Dave2 wrote:
It does matter. So if the state recognizes the transgender person as male then what any kind of trip where they stay together even if they agreed causes possible harassment issues that company will not risk having.

Says whom?

Dave2 wrote:
Also based on saying that to site the federal guidelines. They do not do it for same reason I stated above.

Which federal guidelines are you referring to?

Dave2 wrote:
As far as the state law goes. I do not know how to explain it differently.

Linking to a state law that says what you're claiming might help.

Dark Archive

7 people marked this as a favorite.

This is nonsense. They'll continue to apply a hypothetical that is impossible to argue against because it doesn't exist anywhere, and then challenge us as to how we'd deal with their contrived situation.

You're incorrect about this Dave2. Take a step back and consider how many people are telling you this.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

Quite frankly, there exist multiple scenarios where Crystal's situation could have occurred and not for transphobic reasons. All would require more information than anyone not directly affected by the situation has at the moment.

But let's take a step back. Say it -was- a decision that wasn't made for transphobic reasons.

There's still a woman who was left feeling that she was being discriminated against for being trans coming out of the scenario. And there's no company policy in place that she can look at to see how or why that wasn't the case. Do we see why that's a problem?

I might have a really good reason to pay this male employee more than a female employee in a similar position. Or this black employee more than her Asian counterpart, or whatever. God I hope there's a clear salary policy/set of guidelines to work off of. Because even if I have a good reason, I don't want my female employee thinking it was because she was a female and that's just the way things go. You can see that, right? Even if she accepted that discrimination without going to legal, that's still an undesirable outcome?

A lack of policy led Crystal to the conclusion that she was discriminated against for being trans. There's no way that's a good thing, even if she wasn't. Even if she just sucked it up as one more nasty experience on the list.

A clear policy isn't just CYA for the company in case a disgruntled employee turns on them. It fosters understanding within the organization of how they can expect things to work.

I get that all the details on Crystal's situation won't ever be known to me. But employees today should know that they aren't being shafted over whatever sort of reason, and certainly not because they belong to a minority group that lacks the political capital necessary to avenge their mistreatment.

Silver Crusade

8 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Dave2 wrote:

It does matter. So if the state recognizes the transgender person as male then what any kind of trip where they stay together even if they agreed causes possible harassment issues that company will not risk having.

Also based on saying that to site the federal guidelines. They do not do it for same reason I stated above. There are too many issues to mention on having male and female co workers stay together. If you think this is false ask any HR or HR lawyer and see what they say.

As far as the state law goes. I do not know how to explain it differently. It all comes down to does the state recognize the transgender persons self identification as a women or does the state or maybe if the state does not have any laws concerning this they would be recognized as man. Is there anything that legally recognizes that self identification.

I hate to break it to you, but sexual harassment is not limited to people of opposing genitalia. No matter who is roomed together there's a potential for sexual harassment issues. Limiting it to opposing genitalia havers is a very cisgender heteronormative way of looking at it.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Dave2 wrote:
lots of confusion about gender and sexuality

I posted a version of this in another thread, but you may not have seen it. It might help you understand why genitalia are not important characteristics that make the difference when talking about sexual harassment.

There is a difference between gender identity and sexuality.

A person can be a, poly, bi, homo, hetero, and other kinds of sexual no matter what their gender identity and external plumbing. Trans or cis, who you are sexually attracted to has nothing to do with your gender or your genitalia.

I find it disheartening that Paizo was paying attention to gender in making room assignments and not paying attention to sexuality.

If you want to 'protect' me from unwanted sexual advances, pay attention to who my roommate is attracted to, not how they identify their gender or what appendages are hanging (or not) from their body.

I find it even more disheartening that, when it was pointed out to them that this policy unfairly limited access to important industry cons, that the 'solution' was to limit all employees' access even further. If you don't increase your travel budget, then clearly, fewer employees staying in each room, means fewer employees even get to go to the con.

And obviously, senior management isn't who is left off the list.


11 people marked this as a favorite.

My post stating trans positivity should not ever be considered 'political' was deleted. >:(

So I'm saying it again:

Trans and non-binary people are not political. It's only bigots that make it so.

Dark Archive

12 people marked this as a favorite.

Trans men are men and trans women are women, and non-binary and genderfluid people are also valid, and I don't think that's at all a political topic.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mergy wrote:
But we aren't talking about a man and a woman.

While I agree with you for 99% of issues including this one, there's little guarantee a court would see the issue the same way if something were to happen or even if something were to be alleged.

So what people have to fear is the fear itself. Unfortunately, what other people think matters when they make up a good portion of the legal system.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Mergy wrote:
But we aren't talking about a man and a woman.

While I agree with you for 99% of issues including this one, there's little guarantee a court would see the issue the same way if something were to happen or even if something were to be alleged.

So what people have to fear is the fear itself. Unfortunately, what other people think matters when they make up a good portion of the legal system.

So we're supposed to collapse to the fear and not expect the golem to be immune to mind-affecting emotional effects?

Silver Crusade

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Mergy wrote:
But we aren't talking about a man and a woman.

While I agree with you for 99% of issues including this one, there's little guarantee a court would see the issue the same way if something were to happen or even if something were to be alleged.

So what people have to fear is the fear itself. Unfortunately, what other people think matters when they make up a good portion of the legal system.

Again, where is the law that a trans woman and a cis woman can't share a hotel room? Legality has NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS ARGUMENT.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:


So we're supposed to collapse to the fear and not expect the golem to be immune to mind-affecting emotional effects?

I'm just pointing out that it is a potential risk, and I'd imagine the source of the policy rather than discrimination for it's own sake.

Expecting a company to grow a spine, stand up for their alleged values when someone needs more than words, and take the risk anyway because it's a matter of human rights and that matters more than the vague threat legal exposure is a perfectly valid expectation anyway.

The Exchange

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
So we're supposed to collapse to the fear and not expect the golem to be immune to mind-affecting emotional effects?

no we're not. Basically all we're saying is that it has not have to have happened out of transphobia. It still is a mistake they have to own up to.

Because someone suffered from it


But again, we can speculate all we want, but it's not really a defence for them unless they want to claim it.

Paizo Employee Director of Community

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Reminder to keep the discussion civil. Also, please stop trying to avoid the profanity filter. Using substitutes is not an alternative. Please use a different word instead, to keep your point in the disucssion.


10 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Maps Subscriber

Politics has no place on the paizo forums.

Trans people are worthy of respect and deserve protection from any prejudice and assurances they wont face discrimination.

This isnt a political statement. Its part of being a decent human being.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Cori Marie wrote:
Again, where is the law that a trans woman and a cis woman can't share a hotel room? Legality has NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS ARGUMENT.

It's not that there is a law on the books. It's that a companies liability would be completely different in practice.

Very little of the legal system has to do with the actual laws on the books (especially when it comes to lawsuits). What people: judges, lawyers, juries, lawmakers, think of a situation are influenced by their own life expectations and prejudices at least as much by the words on a page. Many of these people have not caught up with the changing ideas of sex and gender from a platonic two gender system to something more complicated that better fits biological and social reality.

If there were to be an incident or allegation between employees on a business trip who had to share a room the practical outcome would be vastly different. I don't think you can blame a company for worrying about their liability, but you can definitely blame them for putting liability ahead of their alleged values.


10 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Maps Subscriber

Amanda and Crystal weren't being forced to share a room.

They were forced not to.

Theres quite a lot of "If things were different it would be understandable."

Which isn't a great defence.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Maps Subscriber
Tonya Woldridge wrote:
Also, please stop trying to avoid the profanity filter. Using substitutes is not an alternative. Please use a different word instead, to keep your point in the disucssion.

Using substitute characters is pretty much a confession that you know you're breaking the forum rules and are doing so intentionally.

Silver Crusade

8 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

How is that any different than if a lesbian sexually harassed another woman in a shared hotel room? Utilizing trans panic to justify harmful business practices and also saying "well the law would say" is horse manure.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steve Geddes wrote:

Theres quite a lot of "If things were different it would be understandable."

Which isn't a great defence.

It isn't, but I think it beats prejudice for it's own sake.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Cori Marie wrote:
How is that any different than if a lesbian sexually harassed another woman in a shared hotel room? Utilizing trans panic to justify harmful business practices and also saying "well the law would say" is horse manure.

Whether it is the same is the wrong question.

The question is "how would it be seen as any different than if..."

And if we were at the point in society where it wasn't seen differently I don't t think we'd be having this conversation.

Silver Crusade

9 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Cool, so you think it's fine to base company policies on the perceived threat of trans people? Even though those threats are widely cooked up by the British and American right-wing parties to further other trans people and attempt to keep us from being able to exist in public? Because if so we go right back to the core of this argument that it's a policy that is couched in either intentional or unintentional transphobia, and flies in the face of the inclusiveness that Paizo has built it's brand on having.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Cori Marie wrote:
Cool, so you think it's fine to base company policies on the perceived threat of trans people?...and flies in the face of the inclusiveness that Paizo has built it's brand on having

No. I explicitly said the exact opposite.

Expecting a company to grow a spine, stand up for their alleged values when someone needs more than words, and take the risk anyway because it's a matter of human rights and that matters more than the vague threat legal exposure is a perfectly valid expectation anyway.

I don't think its okay for paizo to betray its stated values like that. But I think there is a distinct difference between bowing to external pressure and taking the initiative to make that pressure on your own for no reason. It's not just right and wrong I think there are two levels of wrongs: doing something that's not okay on your own initiative or going along with something that's not okay because going against the grain could hurt you.

That external pressure is real. Yes, it is entirely ginned up for political purposes. Yes, it is completely irrational, yes it is inconsistent. Yes it is at odds with reality. But it's still there and it can still bite you in the rear whether you believe in it or not. I think it's a mitigating factor, but not an exculpatory one.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Several things. First as I pointed out the scenario with Crystal and Amanda may have been fine. Once the company says it is ok for them. Then it is ok for anyone in the future. There is no labor lawyer who is going to say that it is advisable. Do an internet search if you do not agree. At the time this happened there were no clear laws or guidelines on self identification and how someone is recognized. There was recent Supreme Court case concerning the use of bathrooms that has given some clarity. So no company may not want to take the perceived risk.

Another important factor is going to conventions a required job duty or voluntary. I do not know the answer to that or how Paizo selects staff from the development department to go. Based on interviews I have seen from staff it does seem to be voluntary. If it is not a required job duty then an employer will definitely not take any perceived risks based on voluntary activity. As far as damaging the ability to network. It is not an employers responsibility to help employees network with other employers.

Finally to those saying that these are perceived and cooked up scenarios. Look at male and female staff staying together on business trips. The labor lawyers advise against it based on perceived risk of harassment.
As far as making it political, I believe I said to get involved so laws can be passed to help with self identification.

I do think having an HR staff member is a good idea to help with all the labor and work laws. It can be a valuable resource for the company and employees.

As far as the 3 or 4 people who say you are wrong. If you work have you gone to HR and asked? You saying someone is wrong or right does not make it true.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

There are also no clear laws or guidelines about how room sharing is apportioned. So please, don't bring this "it was done for legal reasons that I can't actually cite but trust me because I say HR a lot" argument into a fourth day of posting.

Silver Crusade

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Okay but again, what do you see as the perceived risk? Gender identity is not sexuality, and harassment can happen regardless of who has what genitals. If you're equating trans women to be sexual predators, that IS a problem. If you're equating them to be men, that is also a problem.

Grand Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

With all due respect, those self-same individuals have requested several times that you demonstrate, as a commitment to you making the argument in good faith if nothing else, to provide some form of citation to back your claims. The onus on providing citation when making the claim that “legal difficulties necessitated this policy” is on the person making the claim, and it’s not exactly in good taste to demand someone conduct a google search to do the work your own rhetoric needs to do.

The law is not always cut and dry, true. However, it was created with the intention that it be possible to cite when resolving novel or recurring cases. Therefore, are there any specific legal cases you can point to that provide precedent for this? Are there any state or federal laws, specifically existing tort law, that would facilitate the sort of civil case you seem to be outlining that management might have been trying to avoid? Thus far I have witnessed the same talking point repeated over and over again, but each request for specific evidence has been either ignored or handwaved away.

But even if you *could* provide proper legal citation or precedent via case law (which I doubt you could), that does not change the fact that having such a policy in place strictly clashes with Paizo’s stated values. Values which several executives have apparently reinforced in writing multiple times in the past few days. Given that, if Paizo was essentially disregarding its own states ethics in some misguided effort to cover their own legal behinds, I would certainly say that people would have cause to object! And i am having difficulty understanding why that objection would be unwarranted. After all, if you advertise yourself as a company that has progressive values but then hide behind regressive and potentially discriminatory policies out of of a sense of legal squeamishness, that certainly provides enough conflict that I as a customer might want to look elsewhere.

Still, I do wish to join in with the crowd in asking again: can you back up your description of how this policy is supposed to work or not?


8 people marked this as a favorite.

This would all be far more relevant if Paizo was actually claiming they did this on the advice of their lawyers to avoid potential legal issues. As it is, we're making up defenses for them that they're not even trying to claim. That seems a bit silly to me.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Dave2 wrote:
As far as damaging the ability to network. It is not an employers responsibility to help employees network with other employers.

It is not, but if such opportunities are denied on the basis of something not related to their job, then it can be discrimination.

If, for example, only white employees were given such opportunities, there would definitely be a lawsuit there.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

True but where is the proof that Paizo did it to be harmful or discriminatory. We do not know if they consulted a labor lawyer or not.

So here you go on the issue of male and female staff staying together. It is the opinion of few labor attorneys. Also remember if conversations were voluntary then they may not want to take on any perceived risk

https://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/is-it-illegal-for-an-employer-to-require -male---fe-1116890.html


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Every single one of those replies states that they don't support a policy that REQUIRES a man and woman to share a room.

The very question asked in that Q&A is unrelated to the thread because Crystal is a trans woman and the woman she would have been sharing the room with wasn't "required" to share it with her, but volunteered to share it with her.

You've been making this argument about legality and policy for several days now.

Can you prove that there is a law that would prevent such room sharing at the local, state or federal level or not?

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Also the opinions of labor lawyers do not equal the law. Those are different things.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Cori Marie wrote:


If you're equating them to be men, that is also a problem.

It's a problem I think the vast majority of the country would have if it came up in court or litigation. You can try to tell an entire legal system they're wrong, problematic or incorrect but that isn't going to change anything. However misguided their own paradigms might be those are the paradigms they will use to reach decisions.

Quote:
Gender identity is not sexuality, and harassment can happen regardless of who has what genitals.

The rates are not the same. Which would be the reason for using the most least likely pairings in the first place.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

We're not discussing an entire legal system, we're not discussing a legal process, we're discussing a specific instance. If you can prove that there is legal precedent for that decision, by all means provide the link.

This murky back and forth that somehow it was because of "legal reasons" is just excuse making if you can't actually provide us with evidence that shows what those legal reasons are.

Additionally - since you brought them up. Please provide the statistics on the rates of harassment that includes harassment conducted by men toward women and by trans women toward women.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
This would all be far more relevant if Paizo was actually claiming they did this on the advice of their lawyers to avoid potential legal issues. As it is, we're making up defenses for them that they're not even trying to claim. That seems a bit silly to me.

Yeah, people are doing a lot of legwork for a company whose only statement on the matter seems to be, "... well we'll give everyone separate rooms from now on, so let's stop talking about this."

I know there is diversity of opinion on this, and I know that, say, BNW, you aren't here to tell us that everything Paizo did was okay. I don't want to accuse anyone of being transphobic or a bad ally; any who may be are generally happy to accuse themselves, intentionally or no, so I don't think I really have to.

That said, if Paizo's leadership had any serious defense, we would have heard it. On some level, this was obviously just naked bigotry. The more effort someone puts into actively defending Paizo's treatment of Crystal Frasier, the more a deeper public statement begins to ring clear: "When I can find any trace of a shadow of an excuse for a doubt in my heart, I will err on the side of showing more empathy, compassion and trust for those credibly accused of mistreating and othering a trans woman than I will show for the trans woman herself."

EDIT: I wonder what the public response would have been had Paizo refused to send any gay or bisexual employees to conventions under the same pretexts.

Silver Crusade

11 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Cori Marie wrote:


If you're equating them to be men, that is also a problem.

It's a problem I think the vast majority of the country would have if it came up in court or litigation. You can try to tell an entire legal system they're wrong, problematic or incorrect but that isn't going to change anything. However misguided their own paradigms might be those are the paradigms they will use to reach decisions.

Quote:
Gender identity is not sexuality, and harassment can happen regardless of who has what genitals.
The rates are not the same. Which would be the reason for using the most least likely pairings in the first place.

Considering I've GONE TO COURT and WON over my gender identity, no, I don't think that your first statement is true. I won in a red state, and set precedent in a red region, so your whole argument there goes out the window.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I mean it's worth noting that Paizo did admit that they violated Washington law in other instances regarding transgender and non-binary people so it's not like it's an isolated instance. Though in that instance supposedly he person was fired


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Yeah, to put it really plainly, I think any concern for Paizo's liability for transgender employees runs into numerous major stumbling blocks when you remember that this is Washington, where there are literal laws on the books specifically about how to treat transgender people. And honestly... I did a whole shtick about how trans lesbians aren't more likely to assault cis women than cis lesbians are, but what's the point? The burden of proof isn't even on me or Paizo, it would be on whoever Paizo was supposedly afraid would sue them. But those populations are too small to actually sample effectively.

There is no data. Paizo leadership wasn't being held to an iron. Nobody made them do this. Nobody was complaining about having to room with Crystal. This was leadership's choice, through and through.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Cori Marie wrote:
Considering I've GONE TO COURT and WON over my gender identity, no, I don't think that your first statement is true. I won in a red state, and set precedent in a red region, so your whole argument there goes out the window.

I really can't tell if that's relevant to my point or not with the information there.

A judge or award jury doesn't need to say WHY they found it likely that A harassed B, or found the harassment more egregious than they otherwise might have. It doesn't need to be based on case law, it doesn't need to be based on precedent.

Quote:


Also the opinions of labor lawyers do not equal the law. Those are different things.

Neither does the opinion or Jurors or judges. Thats exactly the problem.

It's the same concern. It doesn't matter if you should have won according to the law or if it should be the same according to the law or that the law is inconsistent. The practical effect is that you wind up paying more, or at the very least paying more legal fees to not pay even more.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Cori Marie wrote:
... I've GONE TO COURT and WON over my gender identity,... I won in a red state, and set precedent in a red region,...

Damn! Good on ya! I would love to know more about that sometime. If you don't want to get into it here, or divulge identifying info, I fully understand.

EDIT: This is probably not the time and place for discussing it, so I'll just go with:
[high-five]


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:


I know there is diversity of opinion on this, and I know that, say, BNW, you aren't here to tell us that everything Paizo did was okay.

No, Just to aim the gragometer a little south of "mustache twirling evil for it's own sake" and into "listening to paranoid beancounters instead of holding to their principles"


7 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Cori Marie wrote:
Considering I've GONE TO COURT and WON over my gender identity, no, I don't think that your first statement is true. I won in a red state, and set precedent in a red region, so your whole argument there goes out the window.

I really can't tell if that's relevant to my point or not with the information there.

It seems like her point is pretty straightforward, and it's what we're all telling you: You seem to be assuming that transgender identity is not yet legally recognized, and... like, I am happy to tell you that it is. I am legally a woman in the eyes of the law. Paizo is not legally required to isolate one woman from the others due to her orientation or any other facet of her identity. They were not at risk of lawsuits, especially since the other employee was explicitly fine with it and actually volunteered for it.

I think your argument seems to be, "Paizo was trying to avoid getting into trouble." It is my genuine pleasure to tell you that as far as I think anyone here knows, with our knowledge of Washington law, there was no trouble to get into. If anything, considering Washington has explicit antidiscrimination laws for trans workers, they went out of their way to cause more.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

So if that is the case then as mentioned those individuals to impact greater change should go to the labor board or EEOC who could assist them with their issues. Those agencies can investigate, mediate, and fine companies.

Blizzard entertainment is an example of that with the state of California. It has had an impact at Blizzard.

Never said it was against the law or illegal. I have said it can present an un needed risk of possible harassment charges. So having two employees share room by going to a voluntary activity (conventions) could have seemed like a risk not worth taking at the time. Why would a company take that risk on voluntary activity.

We are probably never going to have going to know all the details. I do not. My whole point in this is it may not be as simple an issue as people think. As I have said before would I think it is ok for Amanda and Crystal to share a room. Sure. Once again though it does not matter what I think.

I do think it is very good idea to have full time HR staff.
Having worked in government for close to 24 years there can be a lot of variables to complaints of conduct or harassment charges. Have dealt state and federal
EEOC investigations. Have worked with staff who have had medical diagnosis/disabilities there are often complex issue to be dealt with.

As a information referral there is state agency in every state that helps individuals with medical diagnosis/disabilities find a job, keep a job, or advance in a job.

Type in. Vocational Rehabilitation services state of
Type in your state.

Before anyone says it no I am not saying Amanda or Crystal had a medical diagnosis/disability.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:


I know there is diversity of opinion on this, and I know that, say, BNW, you aren't here to tell us that everything Paizo did was okay.

No, Just to aim the gragometer a little south of "mustache twirling evil for it's own sake" and into "listening to paranoid beancounters instead of holding to their principles"

I don't really believe in evil. I also think that casual, thoughtless transphobia and selfish beancounting are far from mutually exclusive. I can fully buy the following take, for example:

"Paizo leadership was simply clueless about trans issues and trans law and had a number of transphobic stereotypes and misconceptions in their heads, and rather than put the time into listening to their employees and learning something, they willingly took actions that had the effect of sabotaging a trans employee's career. They meant well, but the consequences remain."

I can also believe:

"Paizo leadership genuinely didn't really like having a trans employee, who was, after all, only hired in the first place thanks to a blind-test system (as Wes Schneider and Jessica Price have discussed at official Paizo-sponsored panels). They regarded her as, at best, an inconvenience, and stubbornly refused to accommodate her, and ultimately willingly took actions that had the effect of sabotaging a trans employee's career as a result."

I can believe any combination of these. I can believe that it was one or two bad apples, though on some level they had to have been enabled by higher-ups. I can believe it was fully endorsed by multiple higher-ups themselves. I can believe it was systemic, or more a matter of faulty communication. I am actually a deeply idealistic person, and so I personally tend to lean more towards #1: well-meaning ignorant transphobia mixing with selfish paranoia.

But what I can't really find any support for is an explanation in which transphobia and incompetence aren't at least small factors at play. Because rational self-interested justifications simply don't exist.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

If that is the case. If in the state of Washington self identification is recognized and was at the time of the incident. Then yes it would be discrimination. They should have gone labor board or EEOC. When looking at self identification laws I saw Washington was voluntary self identification. This did not say the self identification would be recognized in court. However, if I am wrong and it is recognized then you all are right and it was discriminatory. Sorry about that did not know laws were in place to recognize self identification. I could not find any when I searched. I am not expert though.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

You can legally change your name and gender very easily in many states, happily. :)

As for "why didn't they sue", well, maybe they will and maybe they won't, but that's not what we're talking about here. The Blizzard lawsuit is a silly example because that's a ridiculously, cartoonishly obvious case with massive piles of evidence and very overt damages inflicted, as opposed to this situation, which is, while still obviously quite bad, not as easy to fund a class-action over. As I put it elsewhere:

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

The "she would sue if she had legitimate grievance" point is a little misleading. There are a thousand legitimate reasons she wouldn't have taken this to court. Antidiscrimination lawsuits are risky and costly. They can invite a lot of online bile and harassment from those who will defend their favorite company to the end. They can be difficult to prove, even to an impartial judge. They can derail your personal life. They can lose you connections. In this case, Crystal Frasier might simply not want to destroy Paizo with a lawsuit because I am sure that many people who work there are still her friends. Most importantly, arguably, these kinds of lawsuits can make finding new jobs very difficult in an industry this small, even for a rich, powerful

*checks notes*

indie game developer.

"She hasn't sued them, so clearly there's no real problem" isn't how I think we should have this discussion. Many victims of horrible crimes don't bother going to the police because they don't expect to be believed or don't feel like punishing the wrongdoer will fix anything, and going to the police is technically free. Would you say those crimes clearly didn't truly occur or matter?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
You seem to be assuming that transgender identity is not yet legally recognized,

Not said, hinted, or implied in any way shape or form.

I am NOT assuming that the identity is not legally recognized.

I am assuming that it will not be practically recognized all cases. Or that there is a very legitimate worry about it not being recognized.

Or to put it more pessimistically, Why do ya'll keep thinking the legal system has any relationship what so ever with the law?

On paper, everyone is equal under the law. In practice, you can get away with murder with enough money. On paper, everyone has the right to an impartial jury. In practice, if they don't like you you're getting your trial moved somewhere the old people showing up for jury duty will vote to fry a ham sandwich. On paper the courts are bound by precedent, in practice they manage to do whatever they want. Doubly so for juries.

If you're looking at liability and covering thine rear (the first priority of any lawyer) you are not just looking at the theoretical legal technicalities, you're worried about the possibility of human beings human being at the worst possible time in the worst possible way.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

It is not necessarily silly due to the state of California being involved. There may not be mountains of evidence but going through the EEOC or labor board creates a case. It is record of the compliant. Court may not be the outcome. Issues can get resolved in mediation. I used that example because using EEOC or the labor board can impact more change than tweets or public forums. Company says it is going to change and in act change 5 years later still may have same problems. Going through EEOC or labor board creates that record.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I will say this. There is a limit on when you can file a federal EEOC compliant. Want to say 160 days after incident. That could be wrong. There is time frame though.

251 to 300 of 542 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / General Discussion / Paizo - Care to rebuttal? All Messageboards