Model transitions but expects to carry on earning as much as pre transition.

[Rainbowshit]

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12890405/Fashion-model-Frances-Coombe-sues-agency-civil-rights-violations-claiming-career-destroyed-came-transgender-told-insufficiently-masculine-work-man.html

they always look so unwell after transitioning.

She destroyed her own career. Did she really expect to just switch to male modelling? 🙈

She should get in touch with Modibody. Find out what agency they use for their models

The model was on the books as a female. It sounds like it’s a high end agency so they pick their models carefully so they have a range of looks. A model with long ginger curly hair would be contracted to keep the hairstyle, a very pale person would be contracted to not tan, an androgynous model would be expected to keep that look. It seems perfectly reasonable that someone taken on as female would be expected to model female clothes.

The agency told them they didn’t want them as a male model or an androgynous model. They already had models in those categories.

They already had had discussions. The model went and got their own portfolio done, the agency was clear that they wanted a female model. Even though this model was employed as under a permanent contract not as someone self employed, the role was defined as someone to fill female modelling spots. Not whatever roles they personally wanted to fill.

The model has now been employed with another agency who feel that they can get work for them. Good for them. I hope it works. But they have been hired by that agency as a model for the looks the model wants to present, not a legacy contract negotiated for a model with a particular look which has irrevocably changed due to the model’s personal decision.

Except this pontificating scenario would never happen, because modelling agencies don't just send models to jobs sight unseen, they'd send the client a sample of portfolios and the client would choose who they want based off that. There is no reason they couldn't have continued to send Coombes's portfolio out, along with others, and let the client choose. Also no reason they couldn't have discussed remarketing Coombes based on his new look, there is absolutely an existing market for androgynous and trans models. And what they clearly shouldn't have done is basically refused to acknowledge his transition, misgendered him, then dropped him. Even if they genuinely felt they couldn't offer him work any more, clearly there are better ways to go about it.

Lots of people here are just gleeful because you like it when trans people suffer misfortune or discrimination because you think they deserve it and that it proves some point, and it shows.

They aren't losing their job because trans though. They are losing job because they are refusing to wear what the agency is trying to flog and conform to the look the agency wants to flog.

The expectation that all models adhere to policy and what the agency wants they to wear isn't discriminatory - it's an expectation placed on you if you are male, female or trans.

If you don't meet the standard look they want to promote them you get ditched. If you are refusing to match the female look you were hired for, but fail to match the male look you aren't being discriminated against - you fail to make the grade.

The problem is the refusal to wear certain clothes because this is deemed as somehow demeaning. How that works when the job is to flog those clothes or the lifestyle they are trying to represent I'm not quite sure. The agency isn't trying to demean anyone - they are try to sell a look and you are refusing to sell the look. That's not discrimination. That's being difficult. They've been offered the chance to model regardless of their gender identity but the model is refusing to.

This is what branding and stereotyping is all about. A certain look. If you don't fit the look you don't sell. If you don't sell you arent any good for the job.

More like model has platic surgery and takes drugs looks like shit and doesn't get work? How is that the agencys fault?

'Should not lose your job for being trans...' Oh come on, that's a bit silly isn't it? The unreasonability and drama, and the failure to engage with the actual reality doesn't help anyone here.

If she'd been a dentist or an accountant it obviously would have made no difference. But if you're being employed specifically for your appearance then yes, obviously, it's going to change your opportunities. You're employed if and as you fit the brief of the jobs coming in: you're not being employed for equality, kindness or validation opportunities.

It's one of those jobs like athletics where choosing to transition means letting go of other choices, it's never going to be a case of being able to have it all. And that's life for everyone: when you choose one thing then at the same time you say no to other things.

The problem is that the model is a grievance junkie, like many in this position. They seek to find reasons to be offended and not validated so no matter what the agency does the model will find fault. Even though I'm sure agencies will drop people all the time if their look is no longer in demand or not send photos that they think will not be to the brief which could damage their client base.

I'm sure it's a cut throat business and that agencies don't always treat models as they would like, but it's a business and if the model loses their access to jobs because they no longer fit the brief for the clients the agency has, then it's up to the model to get released and find another agency.

They will either be successful in that as the agency can see potential bookings or they won't. That's not discrimination.

I'm sure there are all sorts of agencies around. I mean I'd have no chance with a top agency but as a 57 year old tall skinny old lady there might be someone out there looking for me should I choose to try. 😁

There are two things going on. The first is the specific circumstances of what happened and the possibility that the model was treated badly. The model might be able to make a claim for ill-treatment. The second is that the situation has at its heart a conflict between how someone wants to be perceived as opposed to reality and how they are perceived by others. There will be situations when that doesn't matter. This isn't one of those situations.

Interesting though, they haven't changed their name from the feminine (FrancEs) to the masculine (FrancIs)

I'm not sure about equality law in Canada, but in England, the use of a comparator is key.

If a female model in the uk was making a claim of sex discrimination, she would claim that she is being treated less favourably than male models. I expect both male and female models are required to wear whatever the client wants modelling. The client will also select their models based on how they look, and the agency will be sent a brief stating what they want 'supplied'. What the clients want is not down to the agency, and the agency's role, if they accept the job, is to select which models to send. It's difficult to think that sex discrimination would arise here, other than linked to terms and conditions.

When it comes to gender reassignment discrimination, I expect the above would apply. The agency would select models to supply to a given job in line with their look matching the brief. If a job required the agency to supply someone with the trans model's looks and chose someone else with these looks, over the trans person, because they weren't trans, this would be discrimination. I wonder if this applies to $300000 worth of jobs?!

I think the points about misgendering and being treated respectfully and different to those about work/modelling assignments.

I assume the wording of the contract will be key here, and the agency will need to make a case explaining the very real differences between male and female modelling.

What a nasty comment.

This will be a fascinating case in both employment and discrimination law.

The discrimination stuff is fairly straightforward .

Then there is the employment issue of employing a woman for women’s fashion who then transitions meaning they no longer meet the criteria for women’s fashion and cannot by default of biological sex characteristics and build meet the Industry criteria for men’s fashion. The agency are in a difficult position - it’s an industry where they are predominantly selling to one of two sexes not 72+ genders. If the trans man does not appear to be what the industry wants then the agency can do nothing about that but they cannot make the model redundant on the basis of transitioning as discrimination comes into play. However they are also likely to discriminate (as seen in the case) if they continue to send the model to jobs where their build is desired and suitable, ie women’s jobs. This kind of situation needs cleared up. If they were a permanent member of staff as claimed then essentially they’d be getting paid for doing nothing because sending in women’s jobs would discriminate and men’s jobs wouldn’t want them - and that is unsustainable for a business.

"Continue to dress as a woman or we'll fire you for being trans" is a pretty forceful position.

This person was literally hired to 'dress as a woman'. The job was looking female and wearing female clothes.
It's not like they were told that while doing an office job or stacking shelves where it wouldn't matter.
Wearing women's clothes was the job.
This is like going to work at Tesco as a shelf stacker and then getting cross because you want to do computer programming on aisle four instead.

I'm not sure it's going to be complex on that basis, as I think the agencies work very hard to avoid having a direct employment relationship with the models. But presumably contract law is equally complex.

Happily Coombe has a new agency, one that specialises in Diversity.

Unfortunately it doesn’t look like the new agency has access to the same calibre of clients as Coombe’s most recent runway show was a fashion school graduation show.

https://www.wespeakmodels.com/

The Harper’s Bazaar Vietnam editorial piece from 2022 was great:

https://models.com/models/frances-coombe

Not surprised her new agency isn't at the same level. If there was work at the level she was doing previously the agency would have put her forward for it. They run a business not a charity.

If there is a demand for the look she is selling then that's good for them.

At the end of the day you pay your money and make your choice.

Don't be ridiculous. They lost their job because they were not able or willing to fulfil the brief. Top fashion houses don't want 'non binary' models who will cause a fuss and refuse to wear the clothes they are being paid to wear. This model was offered work as a female model. They didn't want to do it, so they were let go. They weren't offered work as a male model because they don't fit the brief. They didn't lose their job because they are trans, they lost it because they were no longer performing the expected role.

How is it wrong though

Oh belive me I think worse than that about transition and trans people. Can't wait until this ridiculous medical experimental horror show nonsense is illegal.

Yeah, this is not shocking, it's very obvious plenty on this board have some genuinely very nasty and prejudiced opinions about trans people, mostly though they recognise it doesn't look great to be so explicit about it.

Models are selected when a client considers them to be a good 'canvas' in which they can paint/ market their products.

Models don't choose who to style their hair or what clothes to wear when modelling. It's irrelevant if the style/ products align with their preferences or identity. They role is to be a living mannequin.

This model provides (or provided) a certain type of mannequin. They want to be another type, but aren't marketable as this.

I don't see where identity fits with modelling. It's a visual business, you either look right or you don't. Swimwear and underwear models tend to look different to catwalk models. You could be popular for swimwear but not for catwalk jobs. It's irrelevant which jobs you want. The clients get to choose

Agree. The agency will want to be able to drop models if they no longer fit the look that clients want. So they will have their contracts written to allow that. Not saying that's right or isn't horrible but that's the way it is.

😂I'm stealing that.