Go Figure! Get a Sex Change Operation and Get FIRED!

[ThankYouForNotSmoking]

To the best of my knowledge, there is no consensus saying that pedophiles either chose or chose not to be pedophiles. There's probably not a whole lot of open research done on the topic. Besides, to the best of my knowledge, we prosecute pedophiles not for being pedophiles, but for the sexual assault on children; the City Manager here is being fired for being a transgendered individual.

My personal interest within this story is the right of the community to set there own standards. If this man is not a person the community sees fit to represent Largo, he should be let go. It is unlikely that any city policy referenced regarding this situation was set forth as a mandate of the people.

Well said, and this touches on my point earlier about the interests and representations to his constituency. Sure, he may have a stellar 14 year track record, but after his epiphany and/or revelation, the situation has changed drastically, certainly in the minds of probably many of Largo. I did not know whether his position was purely hired or elected, but one would think there are still the interests of a community to bear in mind.

And ThankYouForNotSmoking, thanks for the clarification on transgendered v. transexual. It will be important how the statute defines it and if he truly falls into that class.

My problem withe "revelation" standpoint is that it's not true. Transgendered people don't decide overnight to be transgendered, and it's largely considered to not be a choice at all by the people involved in gender research. Seeing as none of us (I think) is transgendered, it's difficult to say otherwise. The only thing that changed about him is that now people know he's transgendered, before, he was simply hiding it. He hasn't changed internally as a person or as a politician with this announcement, he has only changed people's perceived view of him. I think it's extremely unfair to say that he will be a less effective Manager now that he's out of the closet, and if he is, and it's a result of his subordinates not respecting him, that's also unfair.

If he's a big person, and realized his transgendered identity were affecting his position as a leader after all this hoopla dies down, he'd step down (I doubt he's that big of a person, or views it that way). Sure it's an unfair situation, but if the City Manager really cares about the city he's managing he'd want the best person to do the job and realizing that he could not longer be that person, even though for unfair reasons, he would step down. What is, in my opinion, grossly unconscionable and more than likely illegal is firing a person for being transgendered (for that matter, for any reason not affecting their work).

 

[MiamiCubano]

To the best of my knowledge, there is no consensus saying that pedophiles either chose or chose not to be pedophiles. There's probably not a whole lot of open research done on the topic. Besides, to the best of my knowledge, we prosecute pedophiles not for being pedophiles, but for the sexual assault on children; the City Manager here is being fired for being a transgendered individual.

My personal interest within this story is the right of the community to set there own standards. If this man is not a person the community sees fit to represent Largo, he should be let go. It is unlikely that any city policy referenced regarding this situation was set forth as a mandate of the people.

Well said, and this touches on my point earlier about the interests and representations to his constituency. Sure, he may have a stellar 14 year track record, but after his epiphany and/or revelation, the situation has changed drastically, certainly in the minds of probably many of Largo. I did not know whether his position was purely hired or elected, but one would think there are still the interests of a community to bear in mind.

And ThankYouForNotSmoking, thanks for the clarification on transgendered v. transexual. It will be important how the statute defines it and if he truly falls into that class.

My problem withe "revelation" standpoint is that it's not true. Transgendered people don't decide overnight to be transgendered, and it's largely considered to not be a choice at all by the people involved in gender research. Seeing as none of us (I think) is transgendered, it's difficult to say otherwise. The only thing that changed about him is that now people know he's transgendered, before, he was simply hiding it. He hasn't changed internally as a person or as a politician with this announcement, he has only changed people's perceived view of him. I think it's extremely unfair to say that he will be a less effective Manager now that he's out of the closet, and if he is, and it's a result of his subordinates not respecting him, that's also unfair.

If he's a big person, and realized his transgendered identity were affecting his position as a leader after all this hoopla dies down, he'd step down (I doubt he's that big of a person, or views it that way). Sure it's an unfair situation, but if the City Manager really cares about the city he's managing he'd want the best person to do the job and realizing that he could not longer be that person, even though for unfair reasons, he would step down. What is, in my opinion, grossly unconscionable and more than likely illegal is firing a person for being transgendered (for that matter, for any reason not affecting their work).

I tend to agree. And, to clarify, I used the term "revelation" and "epiphany" not in the sense of coming to terms with his supposed transgenderism, but rather in the decision to reveal it publically.

 

[ThankYouForNotSmoking]

To the best of my knowledge, there is no consensus saying that pedophiles either chose or chose not to be pedophiles. There's probably not a whole lot of open research done on the topic. Besides, to the best of my knowledge, we prosecute pedophiles not for being pedophiles, but for the sexual assault on children; the City Manager here is being fired for being a transgendered individual.

My personal interest within this story is the right of the community to set there own standards. If this man is not a person the community sees fit to represent Largo, he should be let go. It is unlikely that any city policy referenced regarding this situation was set forth as a mandate of the people.

Well said, and this touches on my point earlier about the interests and representations to his constituency. Sure, he may have a stellar 14 year track record, but after his epiphany and/or revelation, the situation has changed drastically, certainly in the minds of probably many of Largo. I did not know whether his position was purely hired or elected, but one would think there are still the interests of a community to bear in mind.

And ThankYouForNotSmoking, thanks for the clarification on transgendered v. transexual. It will be important how the statute defines it and if he truly falls into that class.

My problem withe "revelation" standpoint is that it's not true. Transgendered people don't decide overnight to be transgendered, and it's largely considered to not be a choice at all by the people involved in gender research. Seeing as none of us (I think) is transgendered, it's difficult to say otherwise. The only thing that changed about him is that now people know he's transgendered, before, he was simply hiding it. He hasn't changed internally as a person or as a politician with this announcement, he has only changed people's perceived view of him. I think it's extremely unfair to say that he will be a less effective Manager now that he's out of the closet, and if he is, and it's a result of his subordinates not respecting him, that's also unfair.

If he's a big person, and realized his transgendered identity were affecting his position as a leader after all this hoopla dies down, he'd step down (I doubt he's that big of a person, or views it that way). Sure it's an unfair situation, but if the City Manager really cares about the city he's managing he'd want the best person to do the job and realizing that he could not longer be that person, even though for unfair reasons, he would step down. What is, in my opinion, grossly unconscionable and more than likely illegal is firing a person for being transgendered (for that matter, for any reason not affecting their work).

I tend to agree. And, to clarify, I used the term "revelation" and "epiphany" not in the sense of coming to terms with his supposed transgenderism, but rather in the decision to reveal it publically.

If anything, I think it's a huge act of bravery for any transgendered person to come out of the closet. I think the vast majority of them hide it away due to stigma and let it continue to wreck havoc on their personal lives throughout their life. If I were a voter in Largo, I'd support his coming to terms on the grounds that it's probably the most honesty you could ever hope to see out of anyone, let alone a politician.

 

[MiamiCubano]

To the best of my knowledge, there is no consensus saying that pedophiles either chose or chose not to be pedophiles. There's probably not a whole lot of open research done on the topic. Besides, to the best of my knowledge, we prosecute pedophiles not for being pedophiles, but for the sexual assault on children; the City Manager here is being fired for being a transgendered individual.

My personal interest within this story is the right of the community to set there own standards. If this man is not a person the community sees fit to represent Largo, he should be let go. It is unlikely that any city policy referenced regarding this situation was set forth as a mandate of the people.

Well said, and this touches on my point earlier about the interests and representations to his constituency. Sure, he may have a stellar 14 year track record, but after his epiphany and/or revelation, the situation has changed drastically, certainly in the minds of probably many of Largo. I did not know whether his position was purely hired or elected, but one would think there are still the interests of a community to bear in mind.

And ThankYouForNotSmoking, thanks for the clarification on transgendered v. transexual. It will be important how the statute defines it and if he truly falls into that class.

My problem withe "revelation" standpoint is that it's not true. Transgendered people don't decide overnight to be transgendered, and it's largely considered to not be a choice at all by the people involved in gender research. Seeing as none of us (I think) is transgendered, it's difficult to say otherwise. The only thing that changed about him is that now people know he's transgendered, before, he was simply hiding it. He hasn't changed internally as a person or as a politician with this announcement, he has only changed people's perceived view of him. I think it's extremely unfair to say that he will be a less effective Manager now that he's out of the closet, and if he is, and it's a result of his subordinates not respecting him, that's also unfair.

If he's a big person, and realized his transgendered identity were affecting his position as a leader after all this hoopla dies down, he'd step down (I doubt he's that big of a person, or views it that way). Sure it's an unfair situation, but if the City Manager really cares about the city he's managing he'd want the best person to do the job and realizing that he could not longer be that person, even though for unfair reasons, he would step down. What is, in my opinion, grossly unconscionable and more than likely illegal is firing a person for being transgendered (for that matter, for any reason not affecting their work).

I tend to agree. And, to clarify, I used the term "revelation" and "epiphany" not in the sense of coming to terms with his supposed transgenderism, but rather in the decision to reveal it publically.

If anything, I think it's a huge act of bravery for any transgendered person to come out of the closet. I think the vast majority of them hide it away due to stigma and let it continue to wreck havoc on their personal lives throughout their life. If I were a voter in Largo, I'd support his coming to terms on the grounds that it's probably the most honesty you could ever hope to see out of anyone, let alone a politician.

If we are to assume that his only motivation in making this disclosure is simply to announce who he really is (and no other secondary "gain" is behind it), it's a pretty ballsy thing to proclaim.

 

[ThankYouForNotSmoking]

To the best of my knowledge, there is no consensus saying that pedophiles either chose or chose not to be pedophiles. There's probably not a whole lot of open research done on the topic. Besides, to the best of my knowledge, we prosecute pedophiles not for being pedophiles, but for the sexual assault on children; the City Manager here is being fired for being a transgendered individual.

My personal interest within this story is the right of the community to set there own standards. If this man is not a person the community sees fit to represent Largo, he should be let go. It is unlikely that any city policy referenced regarding this situation was set forth as a mandate of the people.

Well said, and this touches on my point earlier about the interests and representations to his constituency. Sure, he may have a stellar 14 year track record, but after his epiphany and/or revelation, the situation has changed drastically, certainly in the minds of probably many of Largo. I did not know whether his position was purely hired or elected, but one would think there are still the interests of a community to bear in mind.

And ThankYouForNotSmoking, thanks for the clarification on transgendered v. transexual. It will be important how the statute defines it and if he truly falls into that class.

My problem withe "revelation" standpoint is that it's not true. Transgendered people don't decide overnight to be transgendered, and it's largely considered to not be a choice at all by the people involved in gender research. Seeing as none of us (I think) is transgendered, it's difficult to say otherwise. The only thing that changed about him is that now people know he's transgendered, before, he was simply hiding it. He hasn't changed internally as a person or as a politician with this announcement, he has only changed people's perceived view of him. I think it's extremely unfair to say that he will be a less effective Manager now that he's out of the closet, and if he is, and it's a result of his subordinates not respecting him, that's also unfair.

If he's a big person, and realized his transgendered identity were affecting his position as a leader after all this hoopla dies down, he'd step down (I doubt he's that big of a person, or views it that way). Sure it's an unfair situation, but if the City Manager really cares about the city he's managing he'd want the best person to do the job and realizing that he could not longer be that person, even though for unfair reasons, he would step down. What is, in my opinion, grossly unconscionable and more than likely illegal is firing a person for being transgendered (for that matter, for any reason not affecting their work).

I tend to agree. And, to clarify, I used the term "revelation" and "epiphany" not in the sense of coming to terms with his supposed transgenderism, but rather in the decision to reveal it publically.

If anything, I think it's a huge act of bravery for any transgendered person to come out of the closet. I think the vast majority of them hide it away due to stigma and let it continue to wreck havoc on their personal lives throughout their life. If I were a voter in Largo, I'd support his coming to terms on the grounds that it's probably the most honesty you could ever hope to see out of anyone, let alone a politician.

If we are to assume that his only motivation in making this disclosure is simply to announce who he really is (and no other secondary "gain" is behind it), it's a pretty ballsy thing to proclaim.

Well, I feel pretty secure in assuming that because getting a sex change isn't exactly something you can take too lightly. I really doubt too many people would get a sex change for professional gain - it's too dramatic of a maneuver.

 

[MiamiCubano]

To the best of my knowledge, there is no consensus saying that pedophiles either chose or chose not to be pedophiles. There's probably not a whole lot of open research done on the topic. Besides, to the best of my knowledge, we prosecute pedophiles not for being pedophiles, but for the sexual assault on children; the City Manager here is being fired for being a transgendered individual.

My personal interest within this story is the right of the community to set there own standards. If this man is not a person the community sees fit to represent Largo, he should be let go. It is unlikely that any city policy referenced regarding this situation was set forth as a mandate of the people.

Well said, and this touches on my point earlier about the interests and representations to his constituency. Sure, he may have a stellar 14 year track record, but after his epiphany and/or revelation, the situation has changed drastically, certainly in the minds of probably many of Largo. I did not know whether his position was purely hired or elected, but one would think there are still the interests of a community to bear in mind.

And ThankYouForNotSmoking, thanks for the clarification on transgendered v. transexual. It will be important how the statute defines it and if he truly falls into that class.

My problem withe "revelation" standpoint is that it's not true. Transgendered people don't decide overnight to be transgendered, and it's largely considered to not be a choice at all by the people involved in gender research. Seeing as none of us (I think) is transgendered, it's difficult to say otherwise. The only thing that changed about him is that now people know he's transgendered, before, he was simply hiding it. He hasn't changed internally as a person or as a politician with this announcement, he has only changed people's perceived view of him. I think it's extremely unfair to say that he will be a less effective Manager now that he's out of the closet, and if he is, and it's a result of his subordinates not respecting him, that's also unfair.

If he's a big person, and realized his transgendered identity were affecting his position as a leader after all this hoopla dies down, he'd step down (I doubt he's that big of a person, or views it that way). Sure it's an unfair situation, but if the City Manager really cares about the city he's managing he'd want the best person to do the job and realizing that he could not longer be that person, even though for unfair reasons, he would step down. What is, in my opinion, grossly unconscionable and more than likely illegal is firing a person for being transgendered (for that matter, for any reason not affecting their work).

I tend to agree. And, to clarify, I used the term "revelation" and "epiphany" not in the sense of coming to terms with his supposed transgenderism, but rather in the decision to reveal it publically.

If anything, I think it's a huge act of bravery for any transgendered person to come out of the closet. I think the vast majority of them hide it away due to stigma and let it continue to wreck havoc on their personal lives throughout their life. If I were a voter in Largo, I'd support his coming to terms on the grounds that it's probably the most honesty you could ever hope to see out of anyone, let alone a politician.

If we are to assume that his only motivation in making this disclosure is simply to announce who he really is (and no other secondary "gain" is behind it), it's a pretty ballsy thing to proclaim.

Well, I feel pretty secure in assuming that because getting a sex change isn't exactly something you can take too lightly. I really doubt too many people would get a sex change for professional gain - it's too dramatic of a maneuver.

I agree, but he hasn't done it yet. Merely announced it. I've seen instances, read and had cases wherein people have done all manner of "dramatic" measures in effort to, in their mind anyway, position themselves into a secure and/or protected or even sympathetic posture in the face of something they know is impending. Again, I have not a clue how sound or duplicitous his intentions are here, but merely point out that the likelihood of them being either are about the same given that we know so little abou the case, or the series of events that may have occurred prior to it (or were going on behind the scenes).

 

[ThankYouForNotSmoking]

To the best of my knowledge, there is no consensus saying that pedophiles either chose or chose not to be pedophiles. There's probably not a whole lot of open research done on the topic. Besides, to the best of my knowledge, we prosecute pedophiles not for being pedophiles, but for the sexual assault on children; the City Manager here is being fired for being a transgendered individual.

My personal interest within this story is the right of the community to set there own standards. If this man is not a person the community sees fit to represent Largo, he should be let go. It is unlikely that any city policy referenced regarding this situation was set forth as a mandate of the people.

Well said, and this touches on my point earlier about the interests and representations to his constituency. Sure, he may have a stellar 14 year track record, but after his epiphany and/or revelation, the situation has changed drastically, certainly in the minds of probably many of Largo. I did not know whether his position was purely hired or elected, but one would think there are still the interests of a community to bear in mind.

And ThankYouForNotSmoking, thanks for the clarification on transgendered v. transexual. It will be important how the statute defines it and if he truly falls into that class.

My problem withe "revelation" standpoint is that it's not true. Transgendered people don't decide overnight to be transgendered, and it's largely considered to not be a choice at all by the people involved in gender research. Seeing as none of us (I think) is transgendered, it's difficult to say otherwise. The only thing that changed about him is that now people know he's transgendered, before, he was simply hiding it. He hasn't changed internally as a person or as a politician with this announcement, he has only changed people's perceived view of him. I think it's extremely unfair to say that he will be a less effective Manager now that he's out of the closet, and if he is, and it's a result of his subordinates not respecting him, that's also unfair.

If he's a big person, and realized his transgendered identity were affecting his position as a leader after all this hoopla dies down, he'd step down (I doubt he's that big of a person, or views it that way). Sure it's an unfair situation, but if the City Manager really cares about the city he's managing he'd want the best person to do the job and realizing that he could not longer be that person, even though for unfair reasons, he would step down. What is, in my opinion, grossly unconscionable and more than likely illegal is firing a person for being transgendered (for that matter, for any reason not affecting their work).

I tend to agree. And, to clarify, I used the term "revelation" and "epiphany" not in the sense of coming to terms with his supposed transgenderism, but rather in the decision to reveal it publically.

If anything, I think it's a huge act of bravery for any transgendered person to come out of the closet. I think the vast majority of them hide it away due to stigma and let it continue to wreck havoc on their personal lives throughout their life. If I were a voter in Largo, I'd support his coming to terms on the grounds that it's probably the most honesty you could ever hope to see out of anyone, let alone a politician.

If we are to assume that his only motivation in making this disclosure is simply to announce who he really is (and no other secondary "gain" is behind it), it's a pretty ballsy thing to proclaim.

Well, I feel pretty secure in assuming that because getting a sex change isn't exactly something you can take too lightly. I really doubt too many people would get a sex change for professional gain - it's too dramatic of a maneuver.

I agree, but he hasn't done it yet. Merely announced it. I've seen instances, read and had cases wherein people have done all manner of "dramatic" measures in effort to, in their mind anyway, position themselves into a secure and/or protected or even sympathetic posture in the face of something they know is impending. Again, I have not a clue how sound or duplicitous his intentions are here, but merely point out that the likelihood of them being either are about the same given that we know so little abou the case, or the series of events that may have occurred prior to it (or were going on behind the scenes).

He's apparently already getting hormone replacement therapy, so, he's going through with it.

 

[MiamiCubano]

To the best of my knowledge, there is no consensus saying that pedophiles either chose or chose not to be pedophiles. There's probably not a whole lot of open research done on the topic. Besides, to the best of my knowledge, we prosecute pedophiles not for being pedophiles, but for the sexual assault on children; the City Manager here is being fired for being a transgendered individual.

My personal interest within this story is the right of the community to set there own standards. If this man is not a person the community sees fit to represent Largo, he should be let go. It is unlikely that any city policy referenced regarding this situation was set forth as a mandate of the people.

Well said, and this touches on my point earlier about the interests and representations to his constituency. Sure, he may have a stellar 14 year track record, but after his epiphany and/or revelation, the situation has changed drastically, certainly in the minds of probably many of Largo. I did not know whether his position was purely hired or elected, but one would think there are still the interests of a community to bear in mind.

And ThankYouForNotSmoking, thanks for the clarification on transgendered v. transexual. It will be important how the statute defines it and if he truly falls into that class.

My problem withe "revelation" standpoint is that it's not true. Transgendered people don't decide overnight to be transgendered, and it's largely considered to not be a choice at all by the people involved in gender research. Seeing as none of us (I think) is transgendered, it's difficult to say otherwise. The only thing that changed about him is that now people know he's transgendered, before, he was simply hiding it. He hasn't changed internally as a person or as a politician with this announcement, he has only changed people's perceived view of him. I think it's extremely unfair to say that he will be a less effective Manager now that he's out of the closet, and if he is, and it's a result of his subordinates not respecting him, that's also unfair.

If he's a big person, and realized his transgendered identity were affecting his position as a leader after all this hoopla dies down, he'd step down (I doubt he's that big of a person, or views it that way). Sure it's an unfair situation, but if the City Manager really cares about the city he's managing he'd want the best person to do the job and realizing that he could not longer be that person, even though for unfair reasons, he would step down. What is, in my opinion, grossly unconscionable and more than likely illegal is firing a person for being transgendered (for that matter, for any reason not affecting their work).

I tend to agree. And, to clarify, I used the term "revelation" and "epiphany" not in the sense of coming to terms with his supposed transgenderism, but rather in the decision to reveal it publically.

If anything, I think it's a huge act of bravery for any transgendered person to come out of the closet. I think the vast majority of them hide it away due to stigma and let it continue to wreck havoc on their personal lives throughout their life. If I were a voter in Largo, I'd support his coming to terms on the grounds that it's probably the most honesty you could ever hope to see out of anyone, let alone a politician.

If we are to assume that his only motivation in making this disclosure is simply to announce who he really is (and no other secondary "gain" is behind it), it's a pretty ballsy thing to proclaim.

Well, I feel pretty secure in assuming that because getting a sex change isn't exactly something you can take too lightly. I really doubt too many people would get a sex change for professional gain - it's too dramatic of a maneuver.

I agree, but he hasn't done it yet. Merely announced it. I've seen instances, read and had cases wherein people have done all manner of "dramatic" measures in effort to, in their mind anyway, position themselves into a secure and/or protected or even sympathetic posture in the face of something they know is impending. Again, I have not a clue how sound or duplicitous his intentions are here, but merely point out that the likelihood of them being either are about the same given that we know so little abou the case, or the series of events that may have occurred prior to it (or were going on behind the scenes).

He's apparently already getting hormone replacement therapy, so, he's going through with it.

I didn't read that in the article linked, but the issue with that is two-fold: (1) it's likely him who is alleging he's taking the hormone replacement drugs (can be proven easily enough though) so I guess we take him at his word on that issue; and, (2) he's still not had the procedure...can always back out. The point is, and remains, he still has not had it done.

 

[PetersCreek]

Lemme tug at this from another angle as if I were the employer of a TG employee. I have no problem with TG folks and it's got to be one helluva tough row to hoe to make that decision for change. But hey, I'm just an employer. I'm not family, I'm not a social worker, I'm not a therapist, I'm not a health care provider. I've just got a business to run. What compels me to endure this process and the upheaval it entails, when what I really need is an employee I can count on to continue doing the job for which I hired him or her? Sure, I've got a pretty liberal sick leave policy. We've had employees use it to deal with some pretty serious health issues. But when can/should I be able to say enough is enough?

 

[ThankYouForNotSmoking]

Lemme tug at this from another angle as if I were the employer of a TG employee. I have no problem with TG folks and it's got to be one helluva tough row to hoe to make that decision for change. But hey, I'm just an employer. I'm not family, I'm not a social worker, I'm not a therapist, I'm not a health care provider. I've just got a business to run. What compels me to endure this process and the upheaval it entails, when what I really need is an employee I can count on to continue doing the job for which I hired him or her? Sure, I've got a pretty liberal sick leave policy. We've had employees use it to deal with some pretty serious health issues. But when can/should I be able to say enough is enough?

I would say that if you gave the employee sick leave to get the procedure and recover from it, if the employee proved to be unstable afterwards, you should be able to fire them. You shouldn't be able to fire someone before the fact.

 

[ThankYouForNotSmoking]

I didn't read that in the article linked, but the issue with that is two-fold: (1) it's likely him who is alleging he's taking the hormone replacement drugs (can be proven easily enough though) so I guess we take him at his word on that issue; and, (2) he's still not had the procedure...can always back out. The point is, and remains, he still has not had it done.

At this point I think he's done enough to signal his intention to get the procedure done that we should take him seriously. I guess only time will tell, but there are no apparent reasons to doubt him (except, of course, that he's a politician)

 

[opusXmarco]

Some very good points stated in this thread. Unfortunately, I believe that plans not renew his contract were in place before his plans became public.

 

[PetersCreek]

I would say that if you gave the employee sick leave to get the procedure and recover from it, if the employee proved to be unstable afterwards, you should be able to fire them. You shouldn't be able to fire someone before the fact.

Why shouldn't I be able to fire someone before the fact when I have a reasonable belief that my business is going to be adversely affected? Why must it suffer harm before I can act? In the OP case, the city has allegedly received numerous e-mails saying the city manager should be removed. Now, I have no idea how that translates to the attitudes of other city employees or other people/agencies with whom the manager deals, but it does give me at least some indication that the city manager's position of leadership may already be compromised.

Of course, this is just a generalized hypothetical. The councilman who questioned the city manager's integrity is a bonehead and obviously isn't employing the rationale I'm exploring.

 

[MiamiCubano]

Some very good points stated in this thread. Unfortunately, I believe that plans not renew his contract were in place before his plans became public.

If this in fact was the case, this is a little more troubling. It's also the type of scenario I was envisioning when I mentioned the "behind the scenes" issues in my posts above in stating that it should at least be considered that there may be other motivations by this man at play here.

 

[ThankYouForNotSmoking]

I would say that if you gave the employee sick leave to get the procedure and recover from it, if the employee proved to be unstable afterwards, you should be able to fire them. You shouldn't be able to fire someone before the fact.

Why shouldn't I be able to fire someone before the fact when I have a reasonable belief that my business is going to be adversely affected? Why must it suffer harm before I can act? In the OP case, the city has allegedly received numerous e-mails saying the city manager should be removed. Now, I have no idea how that translates to the attitudes of other city employees or other people/agencies with whom the manager deals, but it does give me at least some indication that the city manager's position of leadership may already be compromised.

Of course, this is just a generalized hypothetical. The councilman who questioned the city manager's integrity is a bonehead and obviously isn't employing the rationale I'm exploring.

You have to prove that your business is going to be adversely affected. My guess is that you've never dealt or observed a situation in which a TG person adversely affected a business and you're going off a gut reaction, that doesn't count as proof. As for the emails, "dozens" of emails is hardly cause for concern especially given the national attention of this announcment.

Also, I have read 3 articles on this thing and no where did it say that his contract was not going to be renewed.

 

[Allofus123]

Big deal.... its Fargo!

I do know that Matt would hit it! :sign:

This is a big deal about nothing. Happens everyday....... life will go on.

 

[PetersCreek]

You have to prove that your business is going to be adversely affected. My guess is that you've never dealt or observed a situation in which a TG person adversely affected a business and you're going off a gut reaction, that doesn't count as proof.

Don't misunderstand me, I'm not trying to "prove" anything in this particular case nor am I really advocating the firing of the city manager. I'm just trying to explore the limits of employees' and employers' rights and how they balance in cases of discrimination, both genuine and putative. I think it's well established in federal law that employers must bear certain reasonable burdens in the course of employing people. One, for instance would be the requirement to provide reasonable accommodations for the employment of the physically disabled. Cost of doing business. But what are the limits of what's reasonable or how much burden should an employer be forced to assume before being able to say, "Sorry, I'm just not willing to take the risk."? After all, "proving" the future isn't as easy as it's written.

As for the emails, "dozens" of emails is hardly cause for concern especially given the national attention of this announcment.

The article actually cited "hundreds." Sure, if you add up enough "dozens", you'd get there but it just doesn't have the same flavor, does it? That's hundreds in a community of 76,000. Of course, you and I don't really know how many are local e-mails, if they were sent before or after the issue came to national attention, if they number two "hundreds" or nine, or what actual percentage called for his termination. So, it could be cause for concern or not. But I don't think the number is so inconsequential that I would dismiss the concern out-of-hand.

City officials say they have received hundreds of e-mails about Stanton's announcement, most calling for his removal.

 

[opusXmarco]

Some very good points stated in this thread. Unfortunately, I believe that plans not renew his contract were in place before his plans became public.

If this in fact was the case, this is a little more troubling. It's also the type of scenario I was envisioning when I mentioned the "behind the scenes" issues in my posts above in stating that it should at least be considered that there may be other motivations by this man at play here.

True, maybe the counsil is looking to go in a different direction. Just like an athlete in the final year of a contract and the team releases him because they're going in a different direction. We may never know what their intentions were let alone motive.

 

[Saxjazzman]

I have to say that this is a great thread. Obviously there are more issues here than just someone getting fired. I, not a student of the secular law, really appreciate the points that are being made. This case really is worth following and I hope that as the case progresses the posts continue!! :thumbs:

 

[Bargogirl]

Has anybody stopped to consider that this may be a highly religous community? If a political figure is seen as doing something immoral or that could be a stumbling block to children or others, that could be some of the reasoning behind their decision. As an example of what I mean, a few years back at the same time as when the whole Clinton sex scandal happened, my son Matt was asked to write a paper on the president and what he stood for. Matthew wrote, "He is an adulterer and a liar." That was all he could bring himself to write about the man because of his disgust.

As for hormone therapy, you have to go through extensive counseling and approval from a doctor before you can begin the shots. He has every intention of going through with it. If I understood correctly, he has been married 14 years and has a teenage son?

Lets examine this for a moment. I assume a man who has invested 14 years in a relationship loves his family, no ands, ifs, or buts. No person who truly loves someone would put their family through the utter torment and chaos that he has for political gain. Also, who is to say he doesn't want to remain with his wife and child? For many transgendered people their identity has changed but not their love. The fact of the matter is that if he loves his family it will cause him to suffer watching them suffer.
Can you imagine the insecurities involved in being his child? Especially a teenage boy? The taunting from kids and the fear that oneday he might "turn" like dad? What about the wife? Assuming she has loved this man for 14 years or longer, she now has to suffer betrayal, and the agony of a decision to stay and allow her son to suffer through the humiliation or to leave and suffer through all the obstacles that divorce offers.

The devastation his personal life will experience dealing with this and rejection of family and friends will make it impossible for him to be an effective leader. After his family issues are somewhat settled, if that can ever be accomplished, and the operation is complete, "she" will probably be able to serve another community that will accept "her" based on ability as an effective leader.

But that's just my opinion.