Welcome to a male world

[SnakeCharmer]

Why are we talking security risks? This is a local fire chief, not a CIA spook. In addition the secret is already out.

"Give up some national secrets or I'll tell everyone you were born a man!"

Yeah...that'll work...everyone knows and a local fire chief doesn't have any useful info anyway. Those sorts of security checks are a requirement at the NSA, not at your local burb.

Your narrow view of a 'security risk' is awfully naive.

You don't think 'just' a fire chief couldn't be coerced in some manner?  Fire/building codes, cause of fire, etc?

[Llava]

They got dealt a shitty hand, and the ones with the strength to accept it and do something about it are to be admired.

But every poker expert will tell you that's a dumb move, you need to fold and get a new hand.

Which I guess sort of fits with going TG, too.

Hm.

That ruined my joke.

Uh..

“It's just painful to know seven days ago I was a good guy and now ... I have no integrity,” Mr. Stanton told the commission.

Not as painful as having your sack lopped off!
Booyah, comeback!

Really, though, that's rough.

[Margalis]

Your narrow view of a 'security risk' is awfully naive.

You don't think 'just' a fire chief couldn't be coerced in some manner?  Fire/building codes, cause of fire, etc?

I work in business software used by major banks. What if I build a back door into our software? Oh noos...I'm a tranny fire me!

Again, there are agencies that are very sensitive to security threats and do comprehensive background checks. If you large debts or foreign ties you may be turned down. Those places are places like the NSA and the CIA where a coerced agent will threaten national secuiry. The local fire department does NOT do that sort of screening and it is silly to pretend otherwise.

Yes, someone could coerce a fire chief into ignoring arson. Nearly everyone has something to hide, nearly everyone can be bribed or coerced, and nearly everyone can do at least some damage on some level. Your local IT guy could probably steal CC info...you local mechanic could sabotage your brakes! Your local zoo keeper could "accidentally" leave the door to the lion exhibit unlocked! A local teacher could poison kids or teach them that 2+2 is eleventy-seven.

Furthermore, now that the secret is out how are you going to coerce him/her? "I know you were born a man!" No shit!

This is what we call "rationalization." Decide to fire someone, then invent a reason. The fact is that local fire departments don't do rigorous security checks. A compromised fire chief is not a national emergency.

If you don't like transgendered/transexuals just say so, don't gussy it up. Better a bigot than a dishonest bigot. I can respect an honest bigot.

To say that they are a security risk now, AFTER the secret is out, makes no sense and talking about security risks at that level is rather absurd to begin with. Everyone in the world is a low-level security risk.

What about the risk of being replaced by someone who does a worse job?

[Morat20]

Not too long ago -- in Britain, I think -- being gay meant you couldn't have a high security clearance. Even if you were openly gay. Because you weren't allowed a security clearance if you were gay, so someone might blackmail you by threatening to ring up your boss and have your security clearance revoked.....Oh, they claimed it was to prevent closeted gays from getting security clearances, until they worked out that the only people who would admit to being gay on the application were, in fact, not blackmailable.

So they gave if it up -- I suspect it wasn't all that enforced.

Being TS is only a security risk if, in fact, being fired for being a TS is a possiblity. How about we just make it illegal to fire you based on your notion of gender -- like we do for your skin color and a host of other reasons.

[Calantus]

Now that is a funny situation. It's a security risk to be a transexual because you could be fired for being a transexual because it's a security risk to be a transexual because....

[Evangolis]

Alright, I can't pass a straight line, even though I think this derail is irrelevant crap.

Since the majority of major security breaches have involved white male heterosexuals, shouldn't we deny security clearances to white male heterosexuals, on the grounds that they are a proven security risk?

[Ironwood]

Why does anyone reply to SC anyway ?  He's a total nutbag.


As to the thread, who cares.  Oh right, the Transgendered minority.  Fuck them.  They're only a minority.  Let's trample the shit out of their rights.  Yeah.  Make seperate dining rooms and toilets for them.  Get those confused fuckbags to the back of the bus and stand up for the fucking majority while they're at it.

Evil confused bastards.

[SnakeCharmer]

Why does anyone reply to SC anyway ?  He's a total nutbag.

Awwwwww.  I'll be sure to lose sleep tonight over that, sheepfucker.


You people are completely missing the point.  "National secrets" (harharhar) have nothing to with it.  Everytime I *think* about hiring someone I run a check their background, their driving record, and credit. And it has NOTHING to do with the extremes you're taking it to.  Background check is obvious (they have to be able to pass a background check by the Port Authorities to gain access to port facilities).  Driving record is because I provide my employees with company vehicles  and I pay their auto insurance.  The credit check is a barometer of their personal responsibility, as well as other things.  If they can't be depended on to pay their own bills, how can I depend on them to file time sensitive notices with the US government?  If they have shit credit, how apt are they to do something illegal for short term benefit (drug running)?  Will they take the 250,000.00 USD they are supposed to deliver to the ship and skip town?  Will they arrange for a 'fake' 200,000.00 USD CTM (Cash To Master) and vanish?  <--That happened 8 years ago to a competing agency, and they JUST found the guy a year ago.  Yeah, the money is covered under my bond and insurance, but it's still not something I want to happen. 

If I am going to hand someone the keys to the proverbial castle (MY business, MY livelyhood, MY reputation within the Port and worldwide maritime community, something I've worked my ass off building), I am going to make damn sure I can trust them and there are no surprises.  Backgroud and credit checks can give an insight as to whether I can or not.

You're talking about a liability in many, many ways.  It doesn't matter if his/her/its secret is out.  Everyone can be bought, you just have to find their 'price'. 

[Merusk]

You're comparing your apples to her lack of oranges.  You DO realize that, right?

[NowhereMan]

WTF?

You seem to be saying it doesn't matter that she's admitted to being a transexual because anyone can be compromised. Thus because anyone at all can be a security risk it's acceptable to fire them. Why the fuck is anyone ever employed?

This wasn't about a security issue, you can't fucking blackmail someone over something if it's not a secret. Ok so maybe he used rentboys or something. There's no evidence (as far as I know) but he may have cause, y'know, he's now a woman. I'm sure all Transgender people use rentboys or practice disgusting sexual acts and so could be open to bribery/blackmail.

Of course that completely ignores the fact that there's no evidence and anyone could be guilty of these same things. Even on grounds of the minor corruption that could she could possibly be open to, you have nowhere explained why she is more likely to be guilty of it than anyone else. Thus on your reasoning you can fire whoever the fuck you want, whenever the fuck you want because "Everyone can be bought."


As an aside, the pronoun use here is weirding me out a bit, it's all over the shop in this post as I keep changing my mind on which one to use. Damn Transgenders are messing up the language.

[Lantyssa]

You people are completely missing the point.  "National secrets" (harharhar) have nothing to with it.  Everytime I *think* about hiring someone I run a check their background, their driving record, and credit. And it has NOTHING to do with the extremes you're taking it to.  Background check is obvious (they have to be able to pass a background check by the Port Authorities to gain access to port facilities).  Driving record is because I provide my employees with company vehicles  and I pay their auto insurance.  The credit check is a barometer of their personal responsibility, as well as other things.  If they can't be depended on to pay their own bills, how can I depend on them to file time sensitive notices with the US government?  If they have shit credit, how apt are they to do something illegal for short term benefit (drug running)?  Will they take the 250,000.00 USD they are supposed to deliver to the ship and skip town?  Will they arrange for a 'fake' 200,000.00 USD CTM (Cash To Master) and vanish?  <--That happened 8 years ago to a competing agency, and they JUST found the guy a year ago.  Yeah, the money is covered under my bond and insurance, but it's still not something I want to happen. 

If I am going to hand someone the keys to the proverbial castle (MY business, MY livelyhood, MY reputation within the Port and worldwide maritime community, something I've worked my ass off building), I am going to make damn sure I can trust them and there are no surprises.  Backgroud and credit checks can give an insight as to whether I can or not.

You're talking about a liability in many, many ways.  It doesn't matter if his/her/its secret is out.  Everyone can be bought, you just have to find their 'price'. 

You have yet to explain why she is a bigger security risk than random_person_01.  With holding that job for fourteen years, I'm betting she has good credit.  Driving I don't know, but being a tranny doesn't suddenly make her any shittier a driver.  (Unless you mean all women are sucky drivers, which at this point wouldn't really be surprising to learn.)

You've already said ANYONE can be bribed, so what exactly is different between bribing her and bribing anyone else?  Does treating her like a second-class citizen suddenly make her more prone to taking any offer that comes along?  Maybe if she was treated as an equal by her employer it wouldn't be any more of an issue than it is with the rest of the employees.

Your problem is that she is transgendered and you're assuming that means all kinds of other horrible things in her background.  Maybe you should worry more about what the background check actually says than what you assume it says.

Or just man up and admit you think being transgender is even more wierd, freaky, and wrong than being a faggot and stop giving us lame rationalizations.

As an aside, the pronoun use here is weirding me out a bit, it's all over the shop in this post as I keep changing my mind on which one to use. Damn Transgenders are messing up the language.

I use 'she', because it is who she feels she is and the direction she is headed.  At the moment, 'he' is probably also appropriate since she still goes by Steve.  It is incredibly validating to have people refer to them the way they perceive themselves though, so I favor using that pronoun.  Given the media often has trouble figuring out what pronoun to use, it makes it even more difficult since we cannot ask the person what they prefer.

Most transfolk understand the confusion though, and there is a period where they're likely to get both used, so the best we can do is to try and use the one they indicate preference for, or how they present if we don't know.  Not that she's likely reading this, but as long as you're trying to be respectful and not willfully ignorant, she would probably be okay with whatever you use.

[sinij]

I think issue is much simpler - majority of people she gets to work would not be comfortable to work with trans-gender boss.

[Merusk]

As an aside, the pronoun use here is weirding me out a bit, it's all over the shop in this post as I keep changing my mind on which one to use. Damn Transgenders are messing up the language.

I use 'she', because it is who she feels she is and the direction she is headed.  At the moment, 'he' is probably also appropriate since she still goes by Steve.  It is incredibly validating to have people refer to them the way they perceive themselves though, so I favor using that pronoun.  Given the media often has trouble figuring out what pronoun to use, it makes it even more difficult since we cannot ask the person what they prefer.

In other words, just play it off like in an MMO.  If they're presenting themselves as a She, they're a She.   :-D

[Calantus]

What if you assume everyone is male regardless of what they say until you have proof to the contrary?

[Ironwood]

See ?  Complete Nutbag...

[Selby]

I think issue is much simpler - majority of people she gets to work would not be comfortable to work with trans-gender boss.

Change "trans-gender" to "gay" "black" "Jew" or "woman" and what do you have?  Something just as acceptable to fire the person over?

I prefer honest bigots myself ;-)

[Numtini]

The person is a city manager, not a fire chief. I work in a town hall. Town/City managers are basically bureaucrats that do the things a mayor would do, except for the official public political parts of the job. Elected officials set the direction, the manager actually does the work. It's a way to make sure that town/city business gets done even if the elected officials aren't competent to do the job. (There are still some towns here with elected town accountants and treasurers Goddess help their taxpayers.)

And give me a break on the security thing. That's ludicrous. There's no security issues with a city manager. The only secrets are contract negotiations until the contract is signed. Most everything else in local government is subject to freedom of information anyway. FFS my email is a public record and you can walk in and ask for it.

What are they gonna do? Blackmail them for being trans. I think everyone knows.

[Paelos]

I think the problem here is that nobody really knows what causes this abnormal behavior in humans, but if we did actually pinpoint it as part of scientific causality you'd see much more support for the condition. I personally don't see transgender people as having a choice over their identity crisis because the consequences of that as a "decision" are pretty ugly. I do think that everyone does have a choice over their actions based on your mental dispositions, however, and as intelligent beings we do have to accept that our choices may offend the status quo around us. This is the situation as it stands today.

I think it's something that deserves more research, but I'm not sure there would be a simple "cure" which would help negate the gender crisis. I don't think that most men will EVER be accepting of a man wanting to become a woman, nor would the vast majority feel comfortable knowing the woman they are dating used to be a man. You've got thousands of years of male bravado/sociology going against that fact.

[Merusk]

What if you assume everyone is male regardless of what they say until you have proof to the contrary?

Same Diff.  However, you do lose out on the angsty "I'm a GUY" retorts from the insecure manginas.

[Evil Elvis]

Anyone willing to mutilate their genitals to be like the opposite sex has clear mental problems.  Although, I wouldn't rate that problem as high as gambling or alcoholism in the work place.

But if he starts trying to make a Matrix sequel, I say burn the motherfucker at the stake.

[Margalis]

Snamecharmer has never made a coherent argument on these boards - not once! It's funny.

"We can't trust dem damn trannies!" That's that argument! Really, I that is the *exact* argument.

I'm still waiting to here how someone being openly transexual is a security risk.

I think issue is much simpler - majority of people she gets to work would not be comfortable to work with trans-gender boss.

That's their problem. You get paid to do a job. Suck it up or find a new job if it bothers you so much. As I pointed out earlier (as did others) this bankrupt line of reasoning is always trotted out to blame discrimination on the victim.

[Evangolis]

Why does anyone reply to SC anyway ?  He's a total nutbag.

It's like those clown balloon punching bags, with sand in the bottom.  You know they are just going to pop right back up, still grinning, but you just gotta take a swing anyway.

As to the thread, who cares.  Oh right, the Transgendered minority.  Fuck them.  They're only a minority.  Let's trample the shit out of their rights.  Yeah.  Make seperate dining rooms and toilets for them.  Get those confused fuckbags to the back of the bus and stand up for the fucking majority while they're at it.

Evil confused bastards.

My, you are grouchy this morning.

I'd point out that, since the overwhelming majority of major security breaches have involved white male heterosexuals, we have clear evidence that white male heterosexuals are an unacceptable security risk, and should not be allowed to serve in sensitive positions, like CIA operatives, or Dogcatcher.

[Lantyssa]

I do belive Ironwood was using extreme sarcasm.  Poe's Law is in effect I suppose, so it should have been green.

[Evangolis]

Oh, I assumed it was sarcasm.  That doesn't mean there weren't blood vessels bulging on his forehead when he wrote it.

[Calantus]

I do think that everyone does have a choice over their actions based on your mental dispositions, however, and as intelligent beings we do have to accept that our choices may offend the status quo around us. This is the situation as it stands today.

I'm thinking that we shouldn't be concerned with whether something offends someone else or not. I'm getting tired of all the bullshit rules put in place so that people don't have to hear the words nigger or fuck, or have to put up with working in the same building as *gasp* a transexual, or have marriage tainted by gays doing it. Unless someone in genuinely harming you in some way then you need to just deal with it.

My tone was not directed at you btw Paelos, which should hopefully not relegate this to politics on my post alone. :P

[Evangolis]

As Hamish said in another thread, freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from the consequences of speech.  You can say any number of nasty words of all sorts anywhere you like, and people can ask you to leave their living room, workplace, etc.  In fact, as pointed out earlier in this thread, the person changing sex probably doesn't have any legal protection against dismissal, since that protection is not commonly mandated by law. 

There are rules against creating a hostile workplace environment via explicit sexual and/or racial harassment, but I don't see those as any different than rules about not throwing a co-worker's files in the recycling bin.  Work isn't a place people can avoid, it is a mandatory shared space, and causing your co-workers emotional distress isn't your freedom.  They are a captive audience, and have to be there.  You want to say whatever you want, go stand on a streetcorner, or talk in your living room, or post on the interrnet.

[Evangolis]

Here is an interview with the City Manager regarding the experience so far.

[Margalis]

The city has almost been held under capture by the most outrageous, meanest e-mails generated primarily by three different churches.

Oh for fuck's sake.

Here is a secret: when I was young I was an altar boy. (No, not Catholic, thanks for asking) Hard to imagine mean angry Margalis as an altar boy maybe but it's the truth. The people I met in Church were all very nice. Some of them were what you might call conservative but all were kind and understanding. They weren't the type to spread hatred.

Now I grew up in a very liberal community, but I *know* there are good Christians out there. It's funny, we see people asking "why aren't there any moderate Muslims denouncing terrorism." Well, why aren't there any moderate Christians denouncing the spreading of hate in the name of Jesus?

Unlike many people here I never think "God Christians are fucking psycho." Some are, some aren't. But I can understand why people do think that because our exposure to these psychos is constant.

It is just amazing that people that profess to follow Jesus are some of the worst purveyors of everything he preached against. Like they never heard a fucking word - in one ear and out the other.

They have thrown eggs on my car. Someone sent me a nasty porno card. The biggest thing was going to a public meeting to hear so many who professed to have a close relation with God be so vicious in their loathing—particularly, the spewing out of hate [from] preachers.

How is it possible to say you believe one thing and literally practice the exact opposite?

[Ironwood]

Here is a secret: when I was young I was an altar boy. (No, not Catholic, thanks for asking) Hard to imagine mean angry Margalis as an altar boy maybe but it's the truth. The people I met in Church were all very nice. Some of them were what you might call conservative but all were kind and understanding. They weren't the type to spread hatred.

So was I.  I mentioned it a while ago in another thread.  Thus, I have no problem imagining it...

[lamaros]

I can respect an honest bigot.

Really?

I can't.

So anyway. Most of the world is filled with insecure, hate-filled bigots. News at eleven?

[Ironwood]

I can respect them more than someone who attempts to make you believe they're not a bigot. Or worse, their doing it 'for your own good'.

Those types need strung up.

[Lantyssa]

Thanks for posting the interview, Evangolis.

[pxib]

How is it possible to say you believe one thing and literally practice the exact opposite?

They literally don't believe in the same God that liberal Christians do. There's a lot of God available in the Bible and everybody gets to choose the parts they like. They are absolutely practicing what they preach... they're just not preaching what you're used to.

[Engels]

Ya bud, that whole 'Judge not lest ye be judged' was an optional feature, don'tchaknow.

[Lantyssa]

And I really hope you don't like shellfish or blended fabrics.