Re “Hired as a man; fired as a woman” (Metro, Nov. 9): I’m a 61-year-old white, male heterosexual. I know no transgender people. That said, I find the firing of Vandy Beth Glenn for any reason other than professional incompetence deplorable, and an affront to all who more than superficially value the basic tenets of American democracy. That she would be fired because she made her former boss “think about things [he didn’t] like to think about” is a travesty of workplace justice and plain ol’ common decency.
The problem was Sewell Brumby’s, not Glenn’s. When one person’s discomfort denies another’s valid and ethically defensible rights, the general core of national integrity and values shrinks. Is Glenn “different”? Who should care, and why should it matter? The tolerance of, regardless of agreement with, “difference” without illegality is an American cornerstone and is democratically honorable, desirable and necessary.
1 comment:
"That she would be fired because she made her former boss “think about things [he didn’t] like to think about” ..."
What I find a bit absurd here is that if this was any other aspect of law, this case would have been thrown out on be basis of discrimination based solely on the individual's differences. Being uncomfortable with another is not and can not be an ethical determinant as a justifiable reason for the denial of livelihood.
I had someone get upset with me because I used my glucometer on a BART train last week. I'm sorry, but I have the right to take care of myself - as hypoglycemia can be lethal - just as the person who transitions is taking care of a necessary, vital need.
If this is the trend that our government is taking then there is something extremely wrong with our definition of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." One can never be happy when they are physically afflicted. It is not for any other individual, in or out of government or a religious belief, to decide what is correct for another individual. If this is the case then we now have a state religion where the options of the patient as being grossly denied if they differ from the majority opinion, which was also the case with granting constitutional protections to people of color in the 1960's/1970's, and is still a bit unbalanced today.
If this were criminal law instead of medicine/employment, this would be a gross infliction of cruel and unusual punishment based solely on a person's irrelevant medical history. One might just as well be fired for having a facial disfigurement or congenital misshapen limb.
Post a Comment