I know a federal agent in Cali who had a sex change and kept his-now-her position. If he/she can perform their duty then their employment should not be interfered with.
2007-03-24 19:00:54
·
answer #1
·
answered by Chi Guy 5
·
2⤊
1⤋
Unless there was something wrong with the way he did his job, I say no; he should not be fired for having a sex change operation.
I don't think a person's sexual proclivities have anything to do with his ability to perform his job. If the man feels that he was born in the wrong skin and changing it will make him happier, I say, more power to him. Gender identity disorder is not some debilitating disease that precludes one from performing his or her job. Firing him for his having gender reassignment surgery violates his constitutional rights.
You can be sure we'll be deluged with before-and-after pictures by the media and details of the lawsuit that will ensue when he sues the city. I for one don't want to hear about it, but I do wish him well.
2007-03-25 02:41:40
·
answer #2
·
answered by KIZIAH 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
Unless his job requires the equipment of his current gender to perform, or the surgery and rehabilitation would interfere with the performance of his job, he should not lose his job.
As far as desire for the change shaking people's confidence in his judgement, few people realize that a person's brain may not in fact be the same sex as their body. The influences that determine gender in the unborn are easily affected by many common toxins and a few unfortunate developmental accidents.
Nobody would do this painful and unpopular thing lightly, and I view a decision of this kind as one beyond the judgement of others.
There are studies on boys castrated to repair horrid circumcision accidents and reassigned as female at birth. When you go back and find that these young men who were 'normal adolescent girls' now married to women and living as men, it becomes clear that we are not the gender of our genitals.
I like men, have sons, all of that.... But if I woke up tomorrow with the wrong set of bits, and everyone expected me to act like, and *be* a man... I would jump off a bridge.
2007-03-25 07:38:10
·
answer #3
·
answered by Gina C 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think that a fully qualified person should never lose their job as long as they have done nothing criminal. If he is good for the community, then why care what he does to his Franks and Beans on his own dime?
2007-03-25 02:06:55
·
answer #4
·
answered by Kenneth C 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
No, but since the operation hasn't happened yet, he'll have some trouble proving that's why they fired him.
2007-03-25 02:06:49
·
answer #5
·
answered by DOOM 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Commissioners contended Mr. Stanton was being fired because they lost confidence in him, not because he wants to be a woman.
I would only add that I would also doubt the judgment of such a person as well, (psychologically speaking), to run anything competently... let alone a city!
2007-03-25 02:06:39
·
answer #6
·
answered by love_2b_curious 6
·
0⤊
3⤋
no they shouldnt. Its all smoke and mirrors to distract us from the greater persecution of our civil rights under Bush and his Iraq Muslim Pogrom (that is the correct spelling for the intended word Pogrom)
2007-03-25 02:02:52
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
of course not. It's still the same person, who will make the same decisions. If this person really gained their position based on issues and competence, gender should have absolutely no impact.
2007-03-25 02:01:31
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
What a heart I think also young...thanks..for giving me hope!!!
2007-03-25 02:17:16
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I do not believe they should lose their job.
2007-03-25 02:03:39
·
answer #10
·
answered by msi_cord 7
·
0⤊
1⤋