Bostok got it wrong - by extension, the above commentary as well. Lumping in gender identity with sexual preference is erroneous, if it is nothing less than binary and includes “transgender”. If gender is biologically bound, then dismissal based on it would be discriminating on immutable traits, like skin color. Which would be amoral.
Bostok got it wrong - by extension, the above commentary as well. Lumping in gender identity with sexual preference is erroneous, if it is nothing less than binary and includes “transgender”. If gender is biologically bound, then dismissal based on it would be discriminating on immutable traits, like skin color. Which would be amoral.
But in the case of “transgender”, perceived gender is based on subjective not objective truths to the level of mental disorder or narcissistic delusion. To say this isn’t grounds for dismissal is a decision at an employer’s peril. Should anyone be compelled to retain an employee that identifies as an elephant or a white woman who claims she’s black? No. If you can’t trust someone with the most fundamental of truths, would you trust them with professional responsibility?
Bostok got it wrong - by extension, the above commentary as well. Lumping in gender identity with sexual preference is erroneous, if it is nothing less than binary and includes “transgender”. If gender is biologically bound, then dismissal based on it would be discriminating on immutable traits, like skin color. Which would be amoral.
But in the case of “transgender”, perceived gender is based on subjective not objective truths to the level of mental disorder or narcissistic delusion. To say this isn’t grounds for dismissal is a decision at an employer’s peril. Should anyone be compelled to retain an employee that identifies as an elephant or a white woman who claims she’s black? No. If you can’t trust someone with the most fundamental of truths, would you trust them with professional responsibility?