Dam. This steve must have some balls. 
It seems to me that your either/or scenario is completely wrongheaded.
It is entirely possible that:
a) the surgery is of great importance to the recipient
and
b) the surgery will not interfere with the recipient’s job performance any more than any other type of major surgery.
I truly do not understand what you mean when you suggest that “the city council didn’t get what it bargained for.” Presumably, when it hired Steve Stanton 14 years ago, it bargained for a person who could competently and professionally perform the tasks required of City Manager. The fact that Stanton kept her job for 14 years in a city that, under the law, could fire her at any time, suggests that the city did, indeed, get what they bargained for from this particular employee.
When you ask about the surgery’s effects of Stanton’s job performance, it’s not clear to me whether you’re talking about the physical problems associated with recovery from major surgery, or about something else. If you’re talking about mere physical recovery time, the amount of time Stanton would have to take off before returning to work, then i agree that this is an issue the city might have to consider.
But this was not the reason given for firing Stanton. The council never came out and said, “You know, Stanton is going to need at least three months off work after this surgery, and the City really can’t function without its Manager for that long.” Personally, i think that such an argument would be crap anyway, but at least it would be within the realms of logic and reason.
The reason given for firing Stanton was the revelation about her transsexuality and the upcoming operation. And the specific reasons given were that, because of these issues, Stanton no longer had “the integrity, nor the trust, nor the respect, nor the confidence to continue as the city manager.”
Now, i admit that, of those four attributes (integrity; trust; respect; confidence) the city council was right about three of them. Stanton DOES no longer have the trust, nor the respect, nor the confidence of the council. But that says a lot more about them, and their own integrity, than it says about Stanton, who has integrity by the bucketload.
By the way, Trunk, the mayor seems to believe that the city got everything it bargained for from Stanton:
I agree: people who change their sex lack integrity and can’t be trusted.
The same goes for people who change their hair style, hair color, place of residence, marital status, or underwear.
If you can’t trust people to stay the same and be who you thought they were, you can’t trust them at all.
:dubious:
I agree with this post.
I think the meaning that Diogenes has claimed is the only possible one is not, in fact, correct. They are not saying that being transgendered means a lack of integrity; they’re saying that the revelation that Mayor Stanton chose to keep this aspect private until now shows a lack of integrity.
featherlou’s analysis is right on the money. I think it’s very buyable that Mayor Stanton chose to keep this private for two reasons that have nothing to do with a lack of personal integrity: first, the belief that it’s absolutely irrelevant to the correct performance of the job of mayor, and second the belief that, were these plans revealed, the result would be bigotry and undeserved discrimination - a prediction that has come to pass.
Not to say that I accept that in all possible jobs, this information is irrevelant. Someone hired as TV’s next “Bachelorette,” for example, cannot reasonably say that this kind of information is irrelevant. And I would support a decision to fire such a person under similar circumstances.
But the job of mayor does not depend on what gender you are, or whether you have sex appeal or are viewed as sexually desirable or available, unless Largo has a VERy different vision for the job than I do. The information is not remotely relevant to job performance, and there is no substance to the claim that keeping it private was a violation of trust or integrity.
Searching news articles about Mary Gray Black over the last 18 years produces some not-surprising results. She has been at odds with Stanton forever. And, she was taken to task in an editorial in the St. Petersburg Times on 10 June 2005.
and
and
. And they go on and on. She’s a dick. But, an operation could probably fix that. 
If Largo is anything like most of the towns along the west coast of Florida south of Tampa, then the"children" are in their mid-50’s and identified by their ability to walk upright, see over steering wheels, locate turn signals and eat after 6:00 p.m.
A couple of good editorials from the St. Petersburg Times:
Bricker, when you’re good, you are very very good…
Will there be legal action resulting from this?
Gotcha. Thanks for helping my very sleep deprived reading comprehension. That’s what Bette at 3:00 in the morning’ll get ya.
I hope so - wrong is wrong. It’ll be a fruitless action, mind you, because the U.S. seems to be hellbent on slogging its way back to the Dark Ages of witchhunts, scarlet letters, and healing with leeches.
Well, as you appear to concede in the rest of your post, the idea that keeping your private life private shows a lack of integrity is patently ridiculous.
Given that this is the case, i’m left with Diogenes’ interpretation of their meaning and motivations as the only reasonable conclusion.
Pssst Bricker… just to let you know, Stanton was the commissioner. Now please don’t lock me up. 
Think again.
As I suggested in my post, this reaction from the producers of “America’s Next Blonde Bombshell,” upon discovering that one of their contestants was transgendered would be perfectly understandable. For that role, it’s reasonable to assume that the issue is relevant to the performance of the job, and concealing it IS an example of lack of integrity.
When Diogenes says that no other explanation makes sense – that the only possible read is that all transgendered people are lacking in integrity – he misses this nuance. It’s very possible to say, “This particular person was dishonest, because we were deceived about an issue that was very relevant ot the job at hand.”
The error they make is not, “All transgendered people are dishonest.” The error they make is: “Being transgendered is relevant to this job.” They may well believe that, although they would be wrong.
I’m not even entirely that sure it would be relevant for “America’s Next Blonde Bombshell”, but eh. I find both** Diogenes’ ** and Bricker’s explanations plausible.
I don’t understand the distinction you’re drawing between what you’re saying and what Diogenes is saying. If the council feels “deceived” by Stanton’s announcement that she’s a woman, how is that different than saying that people who are transgendered are lying about their gender? If they’re not saying all transexuals are dishonest, what are the circumstances (in their view) under which one can be transexual, and be honest about it?
I’ve got to go with Bricker on this. Sort of.
The other commissioners may be homophobic bigots, but it’s just as likely that they are vote whores. They’re caving in to the will of their homophobic and/or ignorant constituancy. Their stated reason, which is pretty different, was that Stanton deceived them all. Fact of the matter is that Stanton’s gender identity is none of anyone’s damn business but her own, just as I owe no one my views on whether I prefer blondes or brunettes.
And what’s up with Mary Gray Black? Is she gray or is she black? Sounds like a flip-flopper to me. Fire her ugly ass.
Stanton should have come out the very first day of his employment and stated “Hey, I’m going to be transgendered in 17 years. Just FYI.”
Yeah. That woulda flown.
The question is, does that make them better than homophobes, or worse?
I vote worse. At least the homophobes are honest.
Did you even read the post you keep mentioning, or the post it was responding to? The point that Johanna thought featherlou had expressed so commendably well was not anything about sex-reassignment surgery per se.
Rather, it was the general insight that it’s a dirty trick for prejudiced people to try to justify discrimination on the grounds that the victims of their discrimination must be “untrustworthy” for keeping secret precisely those aspects of their lives that the prejudiced people are prejudiced against.
It doesn’t have to have anything to do with transgendering or sexuality at all. The point is: If you punish people unfairly for being open and honest about their identities, and then complain that they’re “untrustworthy” if they’re not open and honest about their identities, you’ve set up a Catch-22.