You yourself used the word acerbic. If you’re going to be a bitter, angry person on the job, then you should be fired for that, not for your alcoholism.
Dang, if it’s ethical to fire somebody for being acerbic, then it’s definitely ethical to fire somebody for being transgendered. The only reason to fire somebody for being acerbic is because they disturb people, and a transgendered person can easily do that in the right (or wrong) company.
Best mind your argument; it’s beginning to wander.
Being acerbic on the job is completely different from not liking how someone looks. An asshole who “doesn’t get along with anyone” is creating a hostile environment
But isn’t that a function of their alcoholism? Aren’t there physiological symptoms that we can point to that are both causes and effects of the alcoholism?
In other words, the social disruption isn’t caused by Stanton’s sex change, it’s caused by her co-workers prejudice and ignorance.
The obvious way to approach it is to let Stanton keep her job, and inform her co-workers that they are under no circumstances to harrass her or treat her differently from any other woman employed at the office. Those who are unable to meet that requirement should then be disciplined or let go, exactly as they would if they refused to treat any other empoyee with dignity and respect.
Not necessarily, unless you can prove that all assholes are alcoholics.
I cannot prove what is not true. What if the asshole is predisposed to ulcers but doesn’t tell anyone about it?
Essentially, are we allowed to have any sort of social norms in the workplace other than its effect on profit?
Yes, the disruption is caused by the prejudice of the others. It’s exactly the same as when someone brings their children to the office in that regard: if nobody else minds, it’s not a problem.
And as for your “obvious” approach, in real life, nobody is ever justly fired merely for ‘refusing to treat another employee with dignity and respect.’ Not even if there actyally were some godlike agency available to fire the bulk of the government for merely being a little passive-aggressive. :dubious:
That is how it is at my office. A coworker and very close friend of mine is transitioning, and our boss told the office what you did here, almost word for word. Nobody has expressed an overt problem with it yet.
begbert2, we have a pretty strict non-discrimination policy at our office, and I’m quite sure our boss intends to enforce it if it becomes an issue.
I take it, then, that you’re against any dress code whatsoever, since that’s internal to each person and need not affect the others.
I wanna go to work naked. 
I can’t believe you’re fighting on the side of ignorance. If people are bigots, they are the ones who disturb ‘social justice’ and they’re the ones that need to change. If the municipality is awash in individuals who are unable to understand physiology and psychology, why should they be catered to? If a municipality believed that non-whites should be flayed, would you argue on behalf of them because ‘the proper functioning of municipality’ is a good higher than any other?
Don’t take life so seriously, you’ll have a coronary. I’m just asking a question and examining it. I sort of feel like the argument I am getting sorta takes free will out of the equation. It’s not a choice to be transgendered, it’s a physical defect that can be medically corrected, the surgery is necessary because being born the way they are might spontaneously cause them to hang themselves or something. So you are arguing that this person does not have free will, and that people making an attempt to exert their will are being villified as victimizers. It is somehow their responsibility to accept every paradigmatic shift with alacrity and gusto, because they were not in fact born with a lack of free will like the transgendered person.
What does “effect on profit” have to do with workplaces in the public sector, such as municipal offices like the one where Stanton works?
And you’re darn tootin’ we’re allowed to have social norms in the workplace. What’s confusing you is the fact that social norms are currently, as they are always, in the process of change.
In recent years, we’ve been transitioning from a social norm of “Changing one’s gender identity is deviant, unhealthy and socially unacceptable” to a social norm of “Sexual identity issues, including sexual orientation and gender identity, are matters for individuals to decide for themselves, and have no legitimate place in most professional or business transactions”.
In other words, we’re switching from an attitude of “Everybody must be sexually normal and society must enforce normality!” to an attitude of “Other people’s sexual identity is not really any of your business, and you should ignore it unless it directly affects matters that are any of your business”.
What you’re really complaining about is not that there are no social norms anymore, but that people who try to cling to outdated social norms which contradict the new social norms aren’t being allowed to get away with it unchallenged. They, and you, should feel free to cry me a river. Social norms change.
Well, the proverbial counterexample has been found; I can not generalize to all workplaces.
Of course, in my experience working at the state, it’s normally quite hard to get fired. (Though I admit I never heard of ‘firing by popular demand’, so things seem to work somewhat differently in Tampa Bay.) I knew two guys whose careers were dead due to incompetence, but even that wasn’t enough to fire you. Being a jerk certainly wasn’t; neither was having a severe and somewhat open dislike of somebody else, as long as you didn’t make an issue of it in front of the boss. (We weren’t available to the constituency, but in front of them would probably be bad too.)
Now, if you got caught actually discriminating against a legally protected minority in their capacity as a minority, you could get your ass handed to you on a platter, toot sweet . Being a general jerk, no. Being generally cold to another person, no. And that’s enough to make someone’s life hell, if everyone’s doing it.
(YMMV if the boss has actually taken a stand for the employee in question.)
(And Kimstu, the rate of change in social norms may vary by region. I’m amazed every time someone says in this thread that we’re well on our way to the common acceptance of the transgendered. Say what??)
Productivity always comes down to profit, that’s the bottom line. It’s measured differently in Municipalities that for-profit corporations, but the mechanisms are similar.
I’m not confused by that at all. In that I started a thread examining that very phenomena.
Eh, I don’t know, we’ll see there is a big conservative shift going right now. Personally why anyone has the passion to fight any sort of sexuality of other people issues is beyond me.
No, what you are doing is called projection. You think because I stated a particular opinion that I fit some sort of stereotype that makes it easier for you to categorize people. Not everything you think should be true, is.
Person did not choose to be born with the wrong organs (or brain, take your pick). I saw a documentary about just this subject not long ago. Children - young children - depressed and wanting to die or disappear because they feel they are all wrong and bad and broken.
You think that’s a wonderful way to live? It’s not about ‘free will’ at all but about being forced into a prison that you don’t want to be in. And then people who don’t have that problem think it’s their right to tell you how you should live when it’s none of their blasted business which organs you possess?
You really can’t be serious.
And what, exactly, is wrong with that? That the stubborn and bigoted be made to change? Ooooo. The sky will surely fall. I’m stunned that a person would argue for intolerance, particularly in the face of medicine, which says different.
But then again, some people still think that mental illness is the product of weak minds and some people actually think that the world is flat and some people think Fred Phelps is a guy worth emulating so someday I should learn to quit being dismayed and appalled at this kind of thing.
Mental Illness is about weak minds by definition. If i had an illness in my heart, people would say I had a weak heart. See how that works?
What you are arguing is that everything about us is a matter of physiology. I disagree. That’s a materialist position that I do not truck with.
I think because you stated a particular opinion that you agree with people who hold that opinion. If you don’t like being “categorized” as somebody who holds a particular opinion, then perhaps you shouldn’t have stated it.
What I have in common with them is that I stated a particular opinion. I never said any bullshit about clinging to the past.
I tamper with the status quo constantly, like now.
Would it fill you with ‘Go Team’ spirit if I spat a good riddance at Jerry Falwell with ya?