You were trying to, but Miller has shown you how it is in fact valid when “we didn’t know you were a transsexual before” is the basis of the person in question’s supposed untrustworthiness.
If the Largo city government feels it absolutely must fire somebody in this situation, I nominate for that honor whichever asshole it was who leaked this extremely personal confidential information about an employee/coworker to a major metropolitan newspaper.
Wow, that’s an outstanding interview. I can directly relate to it in several respects. Thanks for posting that, ShibbOleth. I loved the lesbian attorney, too.
Lane DeGregory, an excellent feature writer for the St. Pete Times, has an article in today’s paper that charts Stanton’s lifelong struggle. It brought tears to my eyes and I hope those who argued so ignorantly to have him fired will be forced to think twice after reading it.
But Miller has NOT shown that this is the argument being relied upon. The council could legitimately feel that any personal information that causes media attention is something they are entitled to know about ahead of time. The basis of their objection would not specifically be, “We didn’t know you were a transsexual,” but rather, “We didn’t know you were going to invite intense media scrutiny towards our town.”
But again, Bricker, them thinking they’re “entitled to know ahead of time” presumes that it would be possible for them to know. If Stanton didn’t know she would transition until she decided to, how could she have told them? Before she realized she had to transition, what was there to tell them? Her struggle was internal and she didn’t plan to make it public. Her “decision” to do so is not a “choice” she’s making but something indicated by the medical establishment as the necessary, correct treatment for her condition.
It’s absurd to suggest that it’s legitimate for an employer to demand an employee disclose any possible future treatments they’re not even yet aware they need when they begin employment, or that it’s legitimate for to fire someone <i>for being untrustworthy</i> as the result of any circumstances which result from that necessary treatment. Firing them because they can no longer do their job is another matter, but the given reason wasn’t “the attention makes it impossible for her to do her job”, as you know.
I’m going to be generous and assume Bricker meant “entitled to know ahead of time” to mean, once Stanton made the decision, to perhaps work with the city so that this could be prepared for and gradually worked up to.
Stanton tried to do this and some other motherfucker let the cat out of the bag.
The news article linked to in post 123 and quoted in 124 make it clear that Stanton was attempting to let her coworkers and superiors know ahead of time in a controlled, deliberate manner. The information was made public without Stanton’s consent. Were it otherwise, and Stanton made the information public without attempting to approach her colleagues first, you would have a stronger point. As it is, this was simply a foolish and unthinking backlash against the unknown.
She didn’t “invite intense media scrutiny.” She had it thrust upon her. She didn’t go public about being transexual, she attempted to carefully control who knew, so as to protect her reputation and make sure everyone in her personal and professional life was on the same page and understood what she was doing before she started transitioning. She intended all along to let the council know about her condition before she went public with it, but she didn’t have the chance. That was done on her behalf by someone who dearly deserves to have an intimate encounter with a nest of fire ants. So explain to me again how your argument makes any fucking sense at all, given the facts of the situation?
Just give it up, Bricker. Your impulse to be fair even to apparent villains is admirable, but there’s simply no way you can spin this story to give these assholes an out. The firing was plainly and explicitly motivated by anti-trans prejudice.
