It doesn’t matter if we’re talking about Largo or the entire planet. You haven’t offered any proof that the disruption is due to the transgendered member(s) of the subsection or the general population.
There is very little that is clear with respect to your position or your posts. And you are clearly losing this debate.
Ok, I am sorry, but apparently I am a foreigner in your land, and I am trying to get used to your exotic tongue.
You can use a word to mean anything you want.
It only matters if other people accept your definition.
I and anyone else is free not to accept your definition.
It’s facility in useage is in direct proportion to the adoption of that usage.
I can understand the way you are using it, even if I wouldn’t use it that way myself.
Do you understand now? Have I broken the code of your advanced tongue?
It’s all Greek to me,
Barbarian
I accept that you yourself don’t necessarily believe that the “need” of some City Commission members to avoid dealing with a transgendered person is equally important with the “need” of Ms. Stanton not to be undeservedly fired from her job. I understand that here you are adopting this position provisionally, for purposes of debate.
However, if you adopt a position for purposes of debate, then you need to be able to defend it in debate. You can’t just disavow your provisional position when somebody criticizes it, and then come back later and assert it all over again with no logical justification.
If you are claiming that “the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few” is a valid argument in favor of firing Stanton for having a sex-change operation—even if you’re only claiming it provisionally for the purposes of debate—then you have to make a logical case why the opposing needs in this case should be considered equivalent or comparable.
As far as I can tell, you haven’t even tried yet to make a logical case along these lines. All you’ve done with this particular line of argument so far is to repeatedly assert that “the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few”, and then back off from it when you’re challenged to demonstrate why we should consider both “needs” in this case equally valid.
So, please tell us, provisionally and for the purposes of debate: What logical justification are you proposing for the claim that the “need” to avoid dealing with a transgendered co-worker is equivalent or comparable to the “need” of a transgendered person not to be undeservedly fired from his/her job?
Because if you cannot provide a logical justification for the claim that these opposing “needs” are equivalent or comparable, then you cannot logically use the argument that “the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few” in this case.
I think I already stated elsewhere in the thread that I get to know guys pretty well before I sit down to the poker table with 'em. There are only five guys right now (and we don’t all meet every Thursday night, must most of us most of the time) that I play poker with. These are close personal friends who share lots of common interests. We’ve been in each other’s homes numerous times, I’ve been to their weddings, shared childhood stories, and so on. I just don’t pal around much with guys who are ambivalent about their sexual identities. The only way I would even meet a transgendered person is if he/she came to work where I work or showed up in the church I attend, or maybe joined the Kiwanis club to which I belong. I’m absolutely certain that I will never face a situation in which a man (or woman) I consider a close personal friend will suddenly reveal an overwhelming desire to “go to Trinidad,” as we say.
Thank you.
I am not, I have been debating you on the subject addressing the particulars of your posts.
I’m saying that it might be. I did make a case for that in my last post to you.
The people within the work environment can create an unstable work environment. This unstable work environment can result in a net loss for the city of Largo, regardless of who is morally right.
We are talking about the needs of a collective, not the needs of individual bigots. It’s not just about their spiritual and emotional growth, but also the real world effects that the transition during that period net.
Well, if you’ll address the notion of the needs of the collective rather than making a needs of one person in comparison to the needs of individuals in a collective argument we can take the next step. The collective can be hurt by the paradigm shift in lost productivity due to an hostile work environment.
Transgendered people are anything but ambivalent about their gender identity. The point I’m making is that you don’t know what goes on inside people’s hearts. Particularly if you make your squeamish feelings known to your friends. Do you think they’d entrust you with their secret?
For purposes of this conversation, if one of your friends did share his transgendered status with you, what would you do?
But this is not a logical justification for considering the two “needs” comparable or equivalent. At best, this simply asserts that wanting to avoid dealing with a transgendered co-worker somehow counts as a “need”.
I don’t dispute that wanting to avoid dealing with a transgendered co-worker counts as a “need” of some sort. But you haven’t made any kind of rational case in favor of considering that “need” equally valid or important with the “need” of a transgendered person not to be undeservedly fired from his/her job. Just claiming that “it might be” equally valid or important isn’t good enough for a debate.
If you want to see a serious debate about this position, you’re going to have to put up a reasonably rigorous logical defense of it. Nobody else here is going to do that for you, because apparently nobody else here agrees with this position, not even provisionally.
Most of the debaters in this thread are treating your claims with contempt, not so much because they disagree with them as because you’re simply not doing a good job of defending them logically. As Miller noted, there are a few other people here also arguing the anti-transgender-acceptance side to some extent, who are not taking anywhere near the amount of shit for it that you are. That’s because they’re not trying to assert more than they can rationally justify. Even if you’re only making your assertions provisionally for purposes of debate, you’ve gotta be able to back them up rationally and convincingly if you want them to be taken seriously.
People create unstable work environments by their actions. Who was creating the unstable work environment here?
Suppose this person was gay, or black, or Republican, and the rest of the office was having a hard time adjusting. Is the collective need for a stable and unchanging work environment enough justification to fire the “offending” party? If you take opinion that gender reassignment surgery is enough of a problem, where do you draw the line and why? You wanted to explore this idea, so give us something to discuss. How would you come up with the threshold and why?
Have you ever read “The Lottery” by Shirley Jackson? This reminds me of sacrificing one innocent to keep the collective happy.
He sidestepped this question earlier. Maybe your phrasing will make it worthy of a thoughtful response.
Read the first few pages of this post, and have a question for posters (sorry if it has already been covered). I am a man and identify as such. But let’s imagine for a moment that I identify as a woman. There are many women I know who would object to me using the same restroom as they do. Do they have an obligation to accept me in that restroom if I identify as a woman, even if this makes them uncomfortable?
(On an interesting side note, this is quite a hot topic at the college I attend. Many of the restrooms are unisex, but on the first floor of the library, where many staff work, most of which are woman [probably about 90%] they felt uncomfortable sharing a bathroom with men. So the first floor library restroom is women only, while the others are unisex.)
I will admit I personally have difficulty accepting transgendered people, though I am trying to be more open minded about this, as it certainly does seem an issue that goes beyond simple choice of identification. I know a few, and call them by the names and pronouns they prefer, and have no problem interacting on a professional level with them.
Cheers,
NoALittleH
I don’t believe so. Really, if someone looks like a man and enters the women’s bathroom, a woman inside is not going to wait for an explanation, and rightfully so. This (I’m extrapolating now, someone feel free to slap me if I get it wrong) is part of what causes the distress associated with gender dysphoria; someone who knows that they are female but must use the men’s bathroom because of the way they look is going to be very uncomfortable, and that’s only one of many situations presented every day in which they have to deal with the difference between what they know themselves to be and what people treat them as.
The goal behind all the treatments and cosmetic surgery is to make people perceive and thus treat a transgendered person as the opposite gender. Presentation, even stuff as simple as being clean shaven and wearing earrings and a blouse, plays a very large role in accomplishing this, especially with strangers.
Really, presentation plays a very large role for anyone; other than the surgery, the difference in presenting as a woman versus a man is about the same as presenting as a slob versus a well-dressed businessman (not that I’m drawing any respective equivalencies between the comparisons!).
Right on. Anecdotally, I’ve been using public ladies’ rooms for 2 years now and have never had any difficulty of any sort; I have been getting friendly smiles and greetings from other women I meet there. All because of my womanly presentation, which is behavior as much as dress: I smile and make eye contact.
I don’t believe I’ve ever had to deal with this problem with the exception of the gay bar I went to in Atlanta, which had restroom doors labeled “Men” and “Everybody Else.” 
I’ve read that America has a much bigger problem with unisex facilities than the rest of the world. But if someone presents as a woman, I don’t see what the problem would be.
The initiator would be Stanton obviously. The question isn’t who initiated the the instability, but whether or not it is ok and should be socially accepted.
We aren’t talking about a stable identity, we are talking about a sudden change in apparent identity. So there is your threshold:
“Sudden change in apparent identity”.
Someone is born black. If someone suddenly comes out of the closet they’d have to start acting extremely flamboyant for it to be something really noticeable at work, so I think that’s a bad example. So we might have thought of Steve as one of the boys then we find out on the weekends instead of watching football he likes to wear dresses and grind against the other hot young boys at the club. However, if he’s wearing the same suit or business casual he was wearing last week it’s not quite so dramatic, as opposed to a person wearing a suit and tie, then disappears for two weeks and comes back wearing a dress. If someone were working for Move On, suddenly changed to Republican and endorsed Giuliani I’d expect them to be fired.
Another threshold that I have mentioned from the beginning and reiterated at least a dozen times and been roundly ignored every time is a loss in productivity due to the social rejection of the changed person. What if people don’t like going into Stanton’s office and productivity suffers? You wanna pick this one up? I have been talking about social continuity, and people aren’t addressing social issues, they are addressing individual relationships. The bigots as individuals are expected to get over it, but not one has addressed my question about lost productivity that occurs in the interim while people are adjusting.
No, but I know the story. It’s an interesting question, and it’s really easy to just take a hard moral stance on it without thinking too deeply. It’s the politicians dilemma though. This is what politicians do every day. They shaft one person in favor of another, it’s what they do for a living.
One thing that isn’t really thought of is that when someone has gender reassignment surgery, it’s not just a matter of their sexual identity, but you are also requiring the people who witness this transformation to ask questions about their own sexual identity they might not have ever pondered. The reality is that nervous breakdowns are born of these kinds of paradigmatic shifts, and everyone here seems to be flippantly saying “They should just get over it.”, yet saying “They should just get over it.”, is an unreasonable expectation for the transsexual.
I know that as a low post-count lurker jumping into a debate like this, I’m rather throwing myself to the sharks, but can I take a stab at it?
mswas, I do honestly see your point here (not agree, but see) that the basic issue you seem to be trying to bring up has NOT actually been addressed by those disagreeing with you. So: (please correct me if I mis-state your argument, obviously) you’re saying that even if a person such as Staton has every right to change her gender/declare herself to be a different gender than people previously beleived (pick your wording), it may still be legitimate to fire her because, EVEN THOUGH those people who are bothered by her or feel her presense to be disruptive may be in the wrong, even though perhaps in a perfect world we SHOULD accept her fully, nevertheless there will be disruption, and it will be to the detriment of the larger society/organization (for instance, disrupting the good governance of the city).
Okay. You’re right. There will be disruption, and even though I (and most posters in this thread) feel that the people who are bothered are in the wrong, perhaps she should be fired because the good of the many should outweigh the good of the one. Let’s take this, and run with it.
Then, to my mind, the question becomes, what is the best criteria to determine the good of the many? What level do we examine? In your case, you are taking the well being of one city as your marker. If Stanton worked for a business, it may be the good of the shareholders that would be the relevant marker. But I say, let’s look bigger. Much of recent social history has been a process of mankind broadening its “ingroup,” expanding its ideas of right and wrong and society to encompass much more of the world than previously. So I say, let’s look at a larger group. Let’s think about the good of American society. Or Western society. Or let’s go big and think about the world, why not?
My argument would be that, based on every criteria I can think of to judge the “good” of a large group of people, our larger society would be better off if people like Staton were not only tolerated but accepted fully and not made to suffer from undue hardship.
I think this follows in much the same way that the good of the society is served by being more accepting of women, racial minorities, gays… in every step, I feel that the gradual broadening of acceptance has been for the good of society. Let’s take a step that practically no-one disagrees with anymore: treating blacks as equals. I feel that our society improved morally by this step, for obvious reasons. I feel that our society improved economically by this step- after all, doesn’t allowing every person to take the job they are best suited for encourage economic efficiency and growth? I feel that our society improved on the basis of “the greatest happiness” (lacking a pithy word), for obvious reasons. Therefore, DESPITE the fact that there was a truly massive amount of absolutely undeniable short term disruption, with economic consequences for cities and businesses, and probably any other type of short-term consequence you care to measure, I feel that society’s move to treat blacks as equals did, in the end, serve the good of the many.
Repeat for women, gays, and now, transsexuals.
The only reason, I believe, that this same transition has taken much longer for gays than for racial minorities is because there are fewer of them. In the case of transsexuals, so much fewer of them that people may not think that their greater happiness, greater economic contribution, whatever, may not actually be worth that short term disruption (not attributing that attitude to anyone in this conversation, just saying). I don’t believe that, if only because I think that the moral health of our society suffers regardless of the small number of people who are not accepted. I think a situation that creates such extreme unhappiness over something so easily rectified (witness the suicide numbers repeatedly cited in this thread) can only be horribly wrong. And surely there is a greater economic productivity argument to be made as well.
I wrote this post so that you would not feel that your basic post is being deliberately ignored- I think manhy posters have considered it and rejected it for similar reasons, but just haven’t spelled it out. You made several other points I’d like to respond to, but this is too long already.
And here are the few other points I had trouble with.
You put it this way to avoid the inevitable analogies to race. However, I think you should keep in mind that there was indeed a time when “passing” was a serious issue- the revelation that someone was “passing” could indeed cause just as much disruption. So it doesn’t avoid the race analogy neatly as you think.
However, I think you’ll find that nearly every single person here will agree that if Stanton had been working in a job where gender was relevant, she should have been fired. I remember several comments to the effect of “well, if Staton was a male model…” When the characterstic is relevent to the job it’s a whole different situation, and confusing the two doesn’t help.
To be honest, this is another way in which I think that, despite any short-term disruption, the long term “good of the many” can actually be served by open acceptance. How many coming-out stories have you heard- from gays or transsexuals- involving the simple anguish of not knowing anyone else “like me” or even knowing that it is possible to be open and honest and happy? Perhaps it may disturb people in this generation- but how much happier might the next generation be if they grow up with information and role models who may be like them? If they know that they can ponder their own sexual or gender identity without it being a horrible thing?
Again, I’m not denying your points about short term disruption. I’m just trying to look farther.
Yeah, and I think you’re doing an admirable job of it here.
Yes, this is precisely what I am saying.
Well that’s up to the person making the argument. It works on many levels. It might be a net positive for Stanton a net negative to some of her co-workers, whereas a few people who are relatively ambivalent went with the status quo. Then you look at it from an organizational perspective, that is the city of Largo. A disrupted function of city government can be bad for the city. However, the overall substance of forcing acceptance may have a net benefit for society as a whole, it also may have a negative, IE getting everyone to split into a red state/blue state split over issues such as these where cohesion amongst the members of the state becomes strained.
I agree with everything you say here. Though, I also do see a certain amount of disruption of cohesion that goes with it. Society is atomizing at an incredible rate. Think of corporate America for instance. Is there anything that really makes a corporation ‘American’ other than the residence of its registration? I mean that could be a PO Box. How many ‘American’ Companies have say a Scottish CEO, a Board of Directors with Japaneses, Saudis etc… Fabrication in China and a Call Center in Mumbai? What exactly about them makes them an American company? Now, a lot of our policy is determined by the lobbying efforts that happens throughout the year by the lobbyists these companies hire. Our representatives may be elected by us every two years but they are talked to every day in between by these interests.
One of the hidden effects of tolerance is the disruption of tribal loyalties. Tribes are destroyed by enforced assimilation. We now think of nepotism as being a negative thing, but another word for nepotism is ‘Community’. When someone is hiring their nephew they are thinking about their family’s best interests. Even if there is some black/gay/female/transsexual who would be better at the job, there is a net benefit to the person doing the hiring to hire their nephew. If they don’t hire their nephew, maybe their nephew moves out of state to seek better employment, thus increasing atomization of society.
I think it’s too pat to ignore this social cohesion, particularly since the biggest conflict in the world revolves around atomized secularism vs religious tribalism.
I think it has more to do with apparent difference. A gay man could hide his life from his coworkers, but a black man couldn’t.
Heh, yeah. I guess if they rejected it for similar reasons they shouldn’t have posted at all, as it was the crux of the post. I don’t see much virtue in jumping down someone’s throat about their stance while ignoring their basic point. At least you waited to post until you were going to actually respond to the point I was making. I mean if my point has so little merit why not just let the thread scroll of the front page and meet it’s demise.
[QUOTE=Dragoness]
I put it this way to avoid the inevitable analogies to race, but also to emphasize the sudden and dramatic change that is unique to this particular issue. I think to analogize it too closely with race is to do respect to both the race issue and this issue. I don’t understand what you mean by ‘passing’. Do you mean like a black man who looked white enough?
Sure
That is true, but as I mentioned above there are larger issues of the changes within society that come about as a result of it. To be honest I think that the internet is far more socially disruptive than transsexuals in the workplace, but I wanted to discuss tolerance in terms of social cohesion.
Well to look farther you’d have to analyze the changes of culture as a whole. Multiculturalism is all well and good when it ignores the utter destruction of the cultures it comes into contact with, but most people do not really discuss it’s culture annihilating properties.
What we have here, I think, is a fundamental difference of worldview. It seems like you’re looking at many things that I see as rather separate phenomena as all contributing to one overall thing- the “atomization of society.” For instance, corporations have certainly become international. This is definite positive and negative effects, but I’m not sure that it has much to do with the atomization of society- after all, did your society rely so much on corporations having patriotic loyalty? There are definite trends- better transportation means that families are more likely to be geographically spread- but then again, that has positive effects (yaay for travel!) and technology goes a long way to compensate for spread-out families. The internet has detrimental effects as far as people focusing on their local communities- but it damn well has positive effects as well. Less nepotism means more opportunities for class mobility and meritocracy- seems like a net good to me. Mulitculturalism is a big mess of a concept, but it doens’t have much to do with tolerating gays or transsexuals at all, does it? Basically, you seem to be conflating a lot of things, and seeing acceptance of transsexuals as one of many factors in the wave of disintigration of society that you’re trying to beat back, when I don’t really think there’s one united wave at all- just a lot of developments in our modern world that chance the way we interact with other people, but don’t exactly spell doom for society. The fundamental difference seems to be liberal and conservative (in the lower-case relatively non-political sense) or maybe optimistic and pessimistic, I don’t know.
Anyway, I’m one of those people who thinks that a huge amount of the evil in the world comes from tribalism, religious or otherwise, and that making humanity a little less attached to its tribes is an unqualified good. So… fundamental difference of worldview, fair enough.
Wait, wait. I realize the Stanton thing is more or less incidental to the more general thrust of your point, but I think you’re not fully aware of the facts.
From here:
This isn’t a case of a ‘sudden change in apparent identity’. It would be completely understandable for people to react with surprise and dismay when Steve walks in one day as Susan with no prior warning. Stanton fully intended to take things slowly and make sure his staff was okay with the situation before he publicly came out as she.
Someone leaked the news to the press, getting people the news before Stanton could assess whether or not they’d be accepting of her situation. It’s understandable that they’d react as they did. Doesn’t make it right, but it’s understandable.