I’m not sure I understand the question. Are you asking me to compare the lowest form of plant life to something else? :eek:
From reading the editorials, there may be something to this. From the first editorial I linked above:
It does sound like the Commission caving to a homophobic mob. Whether Black’s remarks were directed at the mere fact of Stanton’s transexuality or at some kind of implied prior deception about it, her comments were equally stupid, equally bigoted at bottom, and let’s not kid ourselves, the firing was rooted in both the Commissioners and much of the public having a hostile reaction to the mere idea of an “immoral” transexual having a position of leadership in their city. The speakers at the Commission meeting who cited their own religious prejudices and claimed that Jesus would want Stanton fired were morons but at least they were guileless morons. They didn’t try to conceal their bigotry behind feigned concerns about the “ethics” of a public official keeping her true gender indentiy private while (by all accounts) performing her job competently and honestly for 14 years. Stanton has not been accused of any illegality, corruption or dishonesty in her job performance and 14 years is a long enough time to gauge if any ethical issues would be likely to surface. I don’t buy that professional integrity was really the Commission’s concern. It was mortification at having a tranny in charge.
This reminds me of Monicagate. Republicans (and some Dems, I’m sure) were keenly interested in whether Clinton got a hummer. What was none of their business they made their business. When Clinton got caught in a lie about it, the asswipes said “Oh, we don’t care about the blowjob. That was never our concern. We hate Clinton because he lied!”
I thought America hit a new low back in those days. Little did I know…
Actually, i completely disagree that those are the two choices.
Firstly, what they said about Stanton was this:
There are, it seems to me, a few possible ways to read these particular statements.
-
Stanton’s transgender status is, in and of itself, relevant to the job, and is cause to conclude that Stanton lacks integrity and is undeserving of trust.
-
Stanton’s revelation about her transgender status was a sudden and dramatic shock to the people who work on the council, and has caused sufficient “stress, turmoil, distraction, and work disruption” to warrant termination.
-
Stanton’s revelation about her transgender status is indicative of dishonesty, because the council should have been informed of this issue a long time ago, and the fact that she chose to hide it reflects on her integrity and trustworthiness.
(1) can be dismissed out of hand. Stanton’s gender identity did not simply activate the moment that it became public. She has presumably identified as transgendered for some time, and has apparently been carrying out the job of City Manager perfectly well, considering that the City recently voted to increase her salary by 9%, a non insubstantial sum in an era of salary freezes and benefit cutbacks. Presumably, a City Manager who wasn’t doing the job properly would have been fired sometime during the previous 14 years, and would not have received a recent hefty increase. It’s clear that a transgender person can do the job. Period.
(2) would perhaps, at a surface level, be the most reasonable argument. Some people do, in fact, react with shock or surprise or even anger when they find out stuff like this. And i’m sure that this can lead to some disruption in a workplace. But their reaction should not be cause to fire Stanton. Their inability or unwillingness to deal with the issue should not be used as an excuse to punish someone else. There was a time when people were uncomfortable working with blacks or Jews, but i doubt anyone would argue now that such discomfort would be cause to fire the victim of the prejudice.
(3) is patently absurd. She was under no legal or ethical obligation to disclose this aspect of her life to the employer. The fact that she has done so now does not make the previous silence on the issue dishonest, and says nothing about her integrity or trustworthiness. Also, as Kimstu rightly notes, this whole line of reasoning is part of an invidious Catch-22 for someone like Stanton, who, in communities like this, is faced with being open about her gender identity and suffering discrimination as a result, or hiding her gender identity and then being accused of dishonesty when it is finally revealed.
You seem to be arguing, Bricker, that’s its possible that the council made a good-faith but misguided judgment about the relevance of Stanton’s transgender status to the job. I’m simply saying that i find that almost impossible to believe, given the alternatives.
As for the possibility that they are just caving in to the bigots in their constituency, i’ll concede that this could well be the case. But, in my opinion, if you allow yourself to be swayed by bigots on issues like this, you become indistinguishable from them.
By the way, according to this article, the city might be in violation of its own explicitly-stated policies:
- Transgendered persons under all circumstances are dishonest, vs:
- In this particular circumstance before us, this particular person owed us the truth and did not provide it, and is therefore dishonest.
Including not a few Doper conservatives, be it noted. Or don’t you recall the trainrecks whenever anyone allegesthat Clinton was impeached for a blowjob?
Perhaps not the ideal choice of terminal exclamation, in this particular case! 
It is contrary to the SDMB’s policy to start organized letter-writing campaigns and such, but the thought occurs to me that Dopers planning to write the Largo City Commission are perhaps barking up the wrong tree. Given the heavy dependence of the area on tourism, the appropriate addressee should be the Largo Chamber of Commerce, copy to the City Commission, indicating the writer’s outrage at the bigoted and offensive action taken and their intent in consequence to ensure that no Largo business gets their patronage. Noting the occasion(s) they have spent in Florida and the approximate sum expended during those stays would be a nice touch.
This is classic double-bind that GLBT people have to face.
Is it too late for me to change “commendably” to “chrysographically”? I can’t believe I thoughtlessly squandered such a, um, golden opportunity to use such a great word.
But I don’t see how a transgendered person could come out as transgendered at any point in their lives without running afoul of #2. Why is is dishonest for Stanton to come out as transgendered now? At what point would it have been “honest” for him to come out, and what makes that point different from this point?
Am I the only one laughing about that second headline?
Actually, this is no longer accurate, but that’s not what I popped in to say.
I have the displeasure to live in the same county as Largo and this issue is quite the shit storm here. The redneck bitch of a bigot in the office next to mine has a husband who works for the city of Largo and when the council’s decision was announced on the radio she got this shitty grin on her face. . . I haven’t come so close to giving someone a beat down since I don’t know when. I had to settle for giving her a verbal smack upside the head. She, like so many of the idiots, tried to play every card she could think of, from “nobody likes him” (oh really? that seems to run counter to everything I’ve read, not to mention his longevity in the position) to " how are people supposed to explain it to their children?" (yeah, because so many kindergardeners are reading the papers these days). That’s the part that pisses me off the most; bigots that can’t fucking be honest about their beliefs. At least the Rev. " I can tell you right now that Jesus would have dismissed him" Dumbass is honest about his views. You don’t understand or like the idea of transgenderism? Understandable. But at least be truthful about it.
Yesterday the St. Pete Times printed a page of letters to the editor that were in support of Stanton. I haven’t seen today’s edition, so it may well contain letters from the other side. I already sent them a letter of my own, explaining that in the past I hadn’t had many reasons to spend time or money in Largo but now I have a definite reason not to. But I like the suggestion of writing to the Chamber even better. Thanks, Polycarp.
Wow. I don’t think I’ve ever been chrysographic before. I must have been feeling supremely inspired. Or tired. The two feel a lot alike.
:dubious:
Not quite. It’s a little top-heavy with old people (30% over 65) and a little ethnically homogeneous (93% white!), but it’s not a retirement community by any means. Largo has a population of about 76,000 – one of 24 municipalities in a county of approximately 928,000. Also, it’s not “south of Tampa”, it’s due west.
I’m so damn tired of this stereotype of my home. It’s not a giant retirement village. It’s a large (2.6 million people) thriving metropolis with the diversity of people from all over the world, an international tourism destination, and an all-around good place to live.
Sometimes, the local idiots make wrong-headed decisions, but I still like it here.
As samclem quoted, our local newspaper (largest in Florida! and also the best!) is soundly on Stanton’s side, and as WOOKINPANUB points out, this is not going quietly around here. Not over yet by a long shot, but the City of Largo’s already fucked it up good.
It’s a great word, glad you posted it. I think the image that flashed on my imagination when typing the chrysographic post was the mu‘allaqat poetry of Pagan Arabia.
There’s hope that before the ax hits the chopping block it can be stayed, if the local and national outcry brings the Largo burghers to their senses. Maybe this could be turned around before it’s finalized.
So, you’re saying it’s worse to be transgendered today than it was, say, 25 years ago? I don’t think so. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if the FL SCOTUS ruled in favor of Ms. Stanton, assuming she sues. Don’t confuse high level justices with small-minded citizens.
As to Stanton’s life, so far as I can tell, there’s no point, including now, where it would be dishonest to come out.
But Stanton is not everyone. As I’ve already noted, someone hired for a role in which public sexual identity is key to the role, such as makeup spokesmodel or reality show romantic interest, would have a duty to reveal themselves.
So the point of contention is: Is Santon in such a job? My answer, already resoundingly given, is no. But if the commissioners argue ‘yes,’ then they are taking a position that Stanton is dishonest without needing to claim that every transgendered person is dishonest. Of course, to support their position, theywould need to explain how their vision of a city manager involves sex appeal or sexual identity… possible, I suppose, but certainly not my understanding of the vision Largo has thus far presented.
I’m impressed by how far you’re willing to bend over backwards to give these people the benefit of the doubt, but the scenario you’re suggesting sounds roughly as plausible as arguing that the council was under the influence of Martian mind-control rays and didn’t know what they were really voting on.
That’s a pretty ridiculous comment, Miller. The commissioners may well feel – incorrectly, yes, but plausibly - that because the city manager is such a public position, they had a right to know because of how the news would affect the public’s view of the city. That’s orders of magnitude away from Martian mind control rays.
You suggested that the councilers viewed the job of city manager as being dependent on sexual identity in the same way a fashion model is, and you want to call me ridiculous? When Stanton was presenting as a man, she was considered trustworthy. When she came out as a woman, she was considered untrustworthy. Since there was nothing about her job that required her to present as male, the problem is that either women are untrustworthy, or transexuals are untrustworthy. Since at least two of the shits voting her out of her job are women, that stacks the odds pretty high that Stanton is out of a job because her employers don’t think you can trust a tranny.