Transgender Need Not Apply At J.Crew

I love how so many have made the "ugly" or "unattractive" employment comment, or, (my favorite) the "hot tranny mess" comment. Because obviously all trans people are ugly. And there's no way trans people could be discriminated against, they're probably all just bitching.

I agree this article raises some questions about the survey's methodology. But as a trans person, I have to say the assumptions people have made in these comments are almost a more accurate indicator of transphobia than this survey could be.

"J. Crew has spent nearly three decades outfitting America's homosexuals in their dandy wardrobe... why aren't you hiring transgender job applicants?"

Isn't there a huge difference between homosexuals (those who are attracted to the same sex) and transgenders (those who change sex, but are not necessarily homosexual). If you're a man who has been changed into a woman and you're attracted to men, doesn't that mean you're straight?

no, it definitely makes you gay.

my parter is openly trans and works at a j.crew store in new york city. just sayin'.

It's J Crew. Preppy New England, traditionally conservative. Retailers are allowed to hire based on appearance in order to promote the brand; what image did these candidates project? The companies in this test are all pretty conservative for the most part. Try M.A.C., Patricia Field, Top Shop...

The bottom line is whether your style matches the brand image the company wants to project, so dress and style accordingly. Most of those companies offer employee discounts and have dress codes that require you to wear the clothes because the reason they hired you is because you look like the catalog.

There are a lot of things that don't seem to be being taken into consideration, here. I'm not saying that these places are in the right in discriminating against transpersons, however, I feel like there are too many variables that aren't being accounted for. For example, how are the testers dressed? This is an incredibly important variable when we are talking about a company so image obsessed that they have a policy policing what their employees can look like and wear. What are their personalities like? Are they speaking to the same people? Did they always go in on the same day? Were there instances where both testers were given an interview? What happened in the interviews? And looking at their results, there are a number of instances where neither applicant was offered a job. What are we supposed to infer from that?

better:

CREW can expect their employees NOT looking like a hot tranny mess.

this is what i want to know: regardless of whether or not j. crew is actually portraying discrimination against the trans-community, why is it that a large number of the gay people posting comments are? trans-people have done nothing to you. it's obvious by a lot of the comments on here, that you (a) don't see us as part of the same community/minority and (b) are extremely ignorant concerning trans-people.

nothing bothers me more than discriminatory gay people. as a trans-person, i voted for marriage equality. i protested for marriage equality. i was kicked out of my house over marriage equality, and i will continue to fight for equal rights of gay and lesbian persons. yet a lot of you make no fucking effort to help the trans-people around you. whether you like it or not, it's lgbT, and we're here to fucking stay.

not all trans-persons look the same. being trans is not the same as being a drag queen or king. we don't always stick out like a sore thumb. if someone is female to male, he more than likely identifies as a man. if someone if male to female, she probably identifies as a woman. if an ftm dates a cisman, THEY ARE A GAY COUPLE. the same goes for a cis and trans women that date one another.

what exactly does a hot tranny mess look like?

appearance is a HUGE factor in some industries.

Retail being one of these.

JCREW can expect their employees looking like a hot tranny mess.

And guess who's first when it comes to probabilities of looking like one?

my comment wasn't meant to be a reply to yours. i unchecked the box, but it posted it as one anyway.

just saying so that you don't feel singled out.

Not to be overly picky about grammar here, but several times times the author of the post uses transgender as a noun, rather than an adjective. You can't say "a transgender applied for a job" in the same way that you wouldn't say "a black applied for a job." It's a transgender PERSON, or a black PERSON.

um, why stop at jcrew and not go after those companies who had an EQUAL track record for not hiring the transgenered? as seen on your poorly non-double-blind 'test'.

yeah, this will go real far with cuomo.

We can't be that far away from a law that prohibits employers from using intelligence or competence as a basis for hiring.

i am in no way trying to deny or downplay that there is retail discrimination that exists. however, just by this article i am not entirely convinced this is a case of such a slanderous accusation.

perhaps the second person had more retail experience? or maybe the second person had an overall, better disposition? more pleasant, more charismatic, better at selling themselves?

this article leaves out a lot of details which unfortunately leads to many holes in this argument.

gbs, you seem to have missed the point that they used matched pairs, so the two applicants will have similar retail experience, charisma, etc. Also, the last paragraph before the table makes it very clear that the two applicants were treated very differently from the beginning, before the potential employers could know anything about retail experience.

moonbeam: the first candidate was not called back, so they would have no idea how good he would be at interviews.

S.K.: because there is real discrimination! How do we know? Because people do tests like this, where they control all the other factors and observe that transgender people are not hired despite being as good as cisgender people.

I agree. I see absolutely no evidence of discrimination. It's likely that the second person was better in the interviews.

"One of the transgender employment testers, Julian Brolaski, applied at the 5th Avenue J. Crew store and 'was treated brusquely, told to fill out an application and was never called.'"

That happens to most applicants, regardless of race or orientation. It's called bad economy, picky employers, unimpressive applicants.

Why do some job applicants insist on using their race, gender, or sexual orientation, to force employers into hiring them?

I definitely saw a transgender (male to female) working at the J Crew in soho maybe a year ago. I remember because I pointed out to my friend what an unattractive female she made.

i'm a little amazed that there's yet to be a lawsuit filed by a guy who wants to do sales (vs. stock) @ victoria's secret.

I need a photo of this transgender. Cause hell, I don't think I would even get hired at J. Crew as I don't fit the bill, style-wise.

here's your photo: http://assets.nydailynews.com/img/2010/03/14/alg_julian_brolaski.jpg

It's all just discrimination based on physical appearances. They can pass all the laws they want, but it will never go away. A store like J Crew is always going to want their employees to be young and attractive. They're not going to hire an ugly person who goes in, even if ugly dude is more qualified.

Similarly, I'm a newlywed in my late 20s and I haven't been able to get a job no matter what I do. It's occurred to me that most employers, having a large selection of applicants to choose from in this economy, take one look at my age and marital status and say "Why would we hire her? She's just going to start having babies soon." And you know what? They're right. I am going to start having babies soon. Does that mean I don't deserve a job until I do? I don't think so. But at the same time, I can't really blame an employer for not wanting to hire someone that they project is just going to quit (or take a longass maternity leave) in short order. And I can't really blame the J Crew hiring people for picking the more normal-looking of two identical applicants, either. Is it right, is it fair? No. But do I understand? Yes.

I don't think you should indicate your marital status on your resume, if that is what you are doing. I imagine that perhaps some employers are finding out that info via Google or Facebook or something, but there should not and need not be any indciation that you are newly wed on your resume.

How come gay men and women are lumped together with transgendered persons? FYI, the two don't always go hand-in-hand.

you're right. they don't always go hand in hand. we're lumped together, because we're both breaking the gender binary in our culture. the binary stating that men are supposed to like women and vice versa. we break the binary by changing genders (and sometimes by sexuality), and you break it by being attracted to different genders than you're told to. either way, we're both queer.

Dearest ferryboi, I understand that delightfully jejune nicknames are toute la rage among the kids these days, and I've resigned myself to the habit of young adult men in certain circles referring to themselves as 'boi,' but 'ferry' makes it sound as if, like Charon laboring on the river Styx, you pole a barge across the East River from Fulton landing to Wall St. I realize this doesn't quite address your question, but perhaps as you inquire more deeply into the complexities of sex and gender, you'll also take a moment to learn the difference between 'ferry' and 'fairy.'

Or he could just be from Staten Island. Nice job ducking his point entirely, by the way

this isn't gawker or english lit 101, stop trying so hard with the references and turns of phrase

nobody cares

Aw, now you've gone and hurt my feelings. I'll tell you what: you try just a bit harder and we've got a deal.

NannyState chastises better than you, with a lot less effort.

So go kiss NannyState's ass and get the fuck off of mine.

You know what would be a more effective way to tackle the issue? A reality-style doc. Follow a few transgender people around as they seek employment. Document a few that are actually gainfully employed and generally "pass."

This kind of stats-based approach is not going to sway many people, because they'll immediately concoct a rationalization for why it is so. (See above.) You need to humanize the issue.

Furthermore. When not working, I live in crew chinos. They may discriminate against transgenders, but they certainly do not discriminate against gays.

You guys ever try to get a job in fashion or glamour? Try being a straight guy in that world. It's hell! All the gay guys are the Queen bees and they treat you like that gay dude on ugly betty combined with Karl Lagerfeld. People should do an investigative report on how awful gay people are in positions of power too.

agree

So, let's try this little experiment with portly middle-aged men and a couple of handicapped dwarfs...

not all transgender people are as easily spotted as you assume, asshole.

The complaint is DOA, and I tend to side with the merchant here.

I'm gonna apply for a job at a restaurant in Chinatown, expect to see the story of my lawsuit next week.

Transgenderism can be shocking or confusing to a customer trying to purchase trendy-bland outfits that will help them find acceptance in vanishing into the fashion background! A tranny would only put the mirror up to Brad in chinos and cardigan sweater. That's not what Brad wants...

Oddy though, it's EXACTLY what Chad secretly wants.

"J. Crew has spent nearly three decades outfitting America's homosexuals in their dandy wardrobe... why aren't you hiring transgender job applicants?" What does the one have to do with the other?

I thought it was understood that apparel retailers hire sales-staff that project the image they (the retailers) envision for their product lines. What is so terrible about that? I don't understand. I, as a straight middle-aged woman, would not go into a gay male venue of some kind (or a transgender one) and expect to get hired. Because I have some common sense!

You see, Trilby16, dear, the problem with your analogy is that the likelihood of a middle-aged straight women such as yourself having to "go into a gay male venue of some kind" (whatever that might mean) in order to find a job, even in this queerest of cities, is slight. On the other hand, a transgendered person, unless she is a drag performer or a prostitute, is more-or-less required to consider employment in a "straight venue of some kind" if she is to purchase the necessities of a transgendered existence such as mascara, silicone implants, and hormones--to say nothing of rent, groceries, electricity, heat, and healthcare.

Thanks for the condescension. I stand corrected!

But if you have ever been a retailer, you would know that you want to create a certain ambiance for your intended customers, and you should be allowed to.

I work in a conservative law firm and wish to dress in Revolutionary War re-enactment gear every day. But it's against the rules! Wah, wah. Just kidding.

I apologize for the smart-ass tone of my response, but I was trying to make an important point with some humor. Regardless of the "ambiance" a retailer--or a conservative law firm, or any employer for that matter--may want to create, it is unlawful in New York City to discriminate in employment on the basis of someone's gender. The NYC Commission on Human Rights Commission defines 'gender':

"The term 'gender' shall include actual or perceived sex and shall also include a person’s gender identity, self-image, appearance, behavior or expression, whether or not that gender identity, self-image, appearance, behavior or expression is different from that traditionally associated with the legal sex assigned to that person at birth."

So, ok, if someone comes in to apply for a job in Carmen Miranda drag, that probably falls outside the HRC's protected catagories. But a business can't just use it's "image" as a cover to discriminate against transgendered people.