Just Plain Ruff Posted February 5, 2013 Posted February 5, 2013 actually if the person can show the qualifications of the job then they should be hired. It's no different to me than the guy who has tattoos and piercings that we had at one of our services. He looked like he just came off of a 5 day binge of heroin and spit. But his medic skills were second to none. As a matter of fact, he arrived at the interview looking like he does every day and just the way I described him. If the person can show bias in the hiring decisions then they have a discrimination case especially when the service says that they do not discriminate based on sexual orientation.
Emergency Laughter Posted February 6, 2013 Posted February 6, 2013 Who gives a shit what they are....are they a good EMT or Paramedic? Do they give the best patient care possible? Do they truely care about the patient and put them above all else? Do they lose the keys to the rig in their purse? OH WAIT....that's my wife...where was I? Oh yea...the only type of person I won't work with is a racist bigot #!**@!!er People come in all shapes, sizes and flavors...you have to take each one on an individual basis, hell I worked a couple shifts with this little green man who flew around the back of the ambulance and cauterized bleeders with his finger.....no wait.....sorry, that was an acid trip I took back in 85....forget I said that.....sorry....
DwayneEMTP Posted February 7, 2013 Posted February 7, 2013 As Capt said, HR may wish that they could keep them out based on their appearance, but they'd better be careful when attempting to do such things. Plus, it's been my experience that as HR rarely has to actually work with anyone that they hire that they are not overly concerned with such things. Also, I'm not sure what the discrimination suit would be, but I don't believe this to be a sexual orientation issue.
Just Plain Ruff Posted February 7, 2013 Posted February 7, 2013 It would be a sexual identity issue maybe? I'm not in HR so I'm not sure what it would be but I'm sure that this has already been tried in the courts at other companies so the definition of what kind of legal case this is is out there in the vapors. I'll leave that up to the lawyers to decide but HR would have a hard time justifying why they didn't hire that person over another if that person can prove they were better qualified than the one who got hired.
DFIB Posted February 7, 2013 Posted February 7, 2013 It would be a sexual identity issue maybe? I'm not in HR so I'm not sure what it would be but I'm sure that this has already been tried in the courts at other companies so the definition of what kind of legal case this is is out there in the vapors. I'll leave that up to the lawyers to decide but HR would have a hard time justifying why they didn't hire that person over another if that person can prove they were better qualified than the one who got hired. Well I guess it would have to be a sexual orientation issue and the real deal. Companies don't usually let people wear costumes to work.
Just Plain Ruff Posted February 7, 2013 Posted February 7, 2013 Well I guess it would have to be a sexual orientation issue and the real deal. Companies don't usually let people wear costumes to work. But to these individuals, these are not costumes, they are part of their identity. If they are in the process of gender identity change, they are not in costume are they?
DFIB Posted February 7, 2013 Posted February 7, 2013 But to these individuals, these are not costumes, they are part of their identity. If they are in the process of gender identity change, they are not in costume are they? I might have not explained my thoughts well. What I meant to say is that the reason that the differences would be accepted would need to be a sexual orientation issue. If a hetero wears a dress it is a costume so for this to become a legal issue, sexual orientation would almost by nesecity come onto play.
Arctickat Posted February 7, 2013 Posted February 7, 2013 (edited) I might have not explained my thoughts well. What I meant to say is that the reason that the differences would be accepted would need to be a sexual orientation issue. If a hetero wears a dress it is a costume so for this to become a legal issue, sexual orientation would almost by nesecity come onto play. However, a requirement of gender reassignment is for the candidate to live and work amongst the populace as that chosen gender for a particular period of time, (typically 12 - 24 months) prior to being considered for reassignment surgery. Transgender individuals are not a sexual orientation issue. There are many schools of thought and no one has actually proven one specific cause to transgenderism. What has been agreed though is that all of the causes boil down to two specific categories. Medical or psychological. Hormone imbalances in-utero, Chromosome abnormalities, an innate feeling that an individual is trapped in the wrong gender. These people go through a very strict psychological assessment prior to being considered for reassignment. Transgenderism is not a mental illness. Therefore, to discriminate against an applicant who is transgendered is not a discrimination based on sexual orientation, but physical disability. Edit: Check this out: http://transequality.org/Resources/NCTE_UnderstandingTrans.pdf One other interesting point, there is a difference between transgender and transexual. A transgender person lives their life as the opposite gender, but does not follow up with gender reassignment surgery, as transexual does. Edited February 7, 2013 by Arctickat 2
DFIB Posted February 7, 2013 Posted February 7, 2013 However, a requirement of gender reassignment is for the candidate to live and work amongst the populace as that chosen gender for a particular period of time, (typically 12 - 24 months) prior to being considered for reassignment surgery. Transgender individuals are not a sexual orientation issue. There are many schools of thought and no one has actually proven one specific cause to transgenderism. What has been agreed though is that all of the causes boil down to two specific categories. Medical or psychological. Hormone imbalances in-utero, Chromosome abnormalities, an innate feeling that an individual is trapped in the wrong gender. These people go through a very strict psychological assessment prior to being considered for reassignment. Transgenderism is not a mental illness. Therefore, to discriminate against an applicant who is transgendered is not a discrimination based on sexual orientation, but physical disability. Interesting.
ClutzyEMT Posted February 8, 2013 Posted February 8, 2013 Oh my gorsh and all this time I thought the tranny was under the hood of my car.... It might take me a few shifts to get comfortable with someone who is a crossdresser or considering reassignment surgery but that's nothing new, it takes me a few shifts to get comfortable working with almost any new partner in "my" rig. Now should this person be overbearing or attempt to force their lifestyle choices or beliefs on myself or my patient, they might just find themselves walking home from a scene or a hospital. It would take a lot for me to make that decision and of course there would be much discussion involved privately with my new partner regarding their behavior before this would happen, but trust me, if they continued to be what I would consider "overbearing or pushy" I would no longer be working with them and would raise some serious concerns with my direct supervisor. Okay now, before you ask what that behavior entails I would probably have a tough time 'describing' it but while I was working the rig in another state I did have a partner that was a gay male. He was fine to work with and you would never know he was gay until you got to know him better. We worked well together, he is still one of my best friends to this day. Move up a few years and I had another partner who was also a gay male. He made everyone around him aware of the fact that he was a gay male. He was very proud of the fact that he was a gay male. When we were on some scenes if the pt showed any 'reserve' at all to him, regardless of the reason they were reserved, he would out and out get hostile to the pt and exclaim to them that "they could not treat him that way"...he made several "mountains out of molehills" due to HIS biases and beliefs. I didn't work with him long. He lasted less than a month at our service and I am not sure if he ever worked in EMS again....and I can honestly say, I hope he didn't. Due to HIS attitude and actions he encountered several difficulties that he would not have. It wasn't the fact that he was gay that made people uncomfortable, it was the fact that he felt the need to SHOVE it in people's faces and DEMAND that they MUST accept him. So I can't honestly say at this point if I would, or would not have a problem working with a "transgender" person, but I can honestly say it would depend entirely on them and not me..... Oh...and we did have a pt who refused to be transported by our service because he did not like the particular EMT on the rig sue us in the past....he didn't win......but the media never got ahold of it either so who knows what would have happened if they had.... 1
Recommended Posts