Comments on: Sexually Disabled

By: Rorschach

Rorschach — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 01:09:37 +0000

Rignerd, it went beyond merely mastectomy as I understand it. I understand she lost both ovaries and possibly her uterus as well from the radiation treatment. Apparently it had metastasized fairly widely. And that sort of cancer is generally sensitive to estrogen which makes it grow like mad, so she can’t undergo HRT either. She is essentially postmenopausal. So I can see where she would not be interested in sex. but again, so what?

By: Rignerd

Rignerd — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 20:50:24 +0000

What a lawyer!!!
I think that just this one misdirect is worth the whole fee.
She has cancer that might come back and she is trying to get into the foreign service where they cannot guarantee treatment facilities. So she will most likely be reassigned stateside where they can keep her from dying. Low probability of living through foreign duty should mean no job for you. If she had cancer of the pancreas it would have been the same. But since it is on the breasts (not a sex organ, maybe sex toys) then they can claim sexual discrimination.

Not to allow the misdirection to perpetuate. I thought that sexual discrimination was sexual orientation, not performance. Otherwise we would have had ambassador John Holmes at the UN and Linda Lovelace holding down the embassy in Paris.

As far as being disabled, I don’t think that missing breasts is a disability unless she is applying to the performance based ambassadorship program (where?). But failing to keep your employer aware of your changing health status is grounds for dismissal. Many professions have health requirements (pilots get flight physicals, even hair dressers have to get tested for TB)

I guess the worst part is that at least one Federal Judge bought into it hook line and sinker.

By: Rorschach

Rorschach — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 19:32:25 +0000

I could see someone inquiring as to sexual performance ability if one were say hiring for a brothel in Nevada. That WOULD be a job duty for a whore after all. And I could see the court ruling that failing to hire her in that basis to be suspect since she CAN have sex, she merely does not enjoy it or derives any pleasure from it. but that is fundamentally different from being physiologically incapable of the act. after all, most whores derive no pleasure from it either and merely act as if they do. So a “reasonable accommodation” could be made (supplying plenty of KY for instance) by the employer in order to employ her in that capacity.

But an FSO? You gotta be kidding me. I’ve heard the phrase that “international relations” consists of one country screwing another, but I don’t think they meant literally.

By: wayne

wayne — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 13:45:52 +0000

So, where does being dead fall in this “ruling”. Suppose I suffer a 100% “major life activity” disability. Can I still be placed by the Foreign Service. I know I could still vote !

By: Ken

Ken — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 21:39:27 +0000

That’s because these days the only allowed sexual behavior is horndog indulgence. “Virgin” is a cussword, and Virginity and Abstinence are horrible perversions that must be stamped out at all costs. Given that, would anyone admit to being “sexually disabled”?

Ever seen a virgin get outed?

P.S. What does your sexual abilities (or proclivities) have to do with job discrimination? What type of job requires THAT as a job skill? (Wait a minute; I have an answer…)