[News] Leafs part ways with recently hired goalie coach after social media history comes up

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

Getting an endorsement from PepsiFree is like getting an endorsement from Charles Mansion. Not something you should be advertising.

This issue really boils down to the rights of the employer to protect their image and brand, and expecting employees to follow certain standards and embrace values consistent with those of the organization. If the company discovers that an employee espouses or promotes values inconsistent with that behavioral standard, they have the right to terminate that employee. The Leafs have taken a stand on certain social issues, and one of their employees was discovered to be promoting views that are inconsistent with their expectations. They have all the right in the world to terminate that employee. The real problem here is they did not do proper due diligence during their hiring process and now have to explain away this embarrassing situation. This should have been caught in background and the individual never should have been hired in the first place.

The Leafs' presser basically says exactly this. he never should have been hired and their DD was lacking. They say it normally would have worked but their process wasn't followed.

[PepsiFree]

I think that something people often forget about these things while they’re busy hand wringing is just how extremely common these reactions are on Twitter and how rarely anything is done about it. Like maybe you all aren’t on Twitter so you think the mob just hand selects a victim, destroys their career, and then moves on to the next career they can destroy. Unfortunately, the “mob” reacts to literally everything. Every day, there is new drama, someone misspoke, someone is a racist, whatever whatever etc. 99% nothing happens. Why? Because most companies don’t actually care what Twitter thinks. Why? Because most companies don’t rely heavily on the public perception of their brand from millennials and a few gen x folks. Some do, sure. Chances are, you can post whatever crazy nonsense you want on Twitter and nothing will ever happen to you, even on the off chance a group of people hate it. Why did this guy get fired? Because his job, as minor as it is, is higher profile than 99% of the jobs in North America. That’s the game you play in that space. Most of you who are freaking out need not worry, you’ll never be high profile enough for this situation to ever matter to you.

Signed:
- OBC President, Charles Manson

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I think that something people often forget about these things while they’re busy hand wringing is just how extremely common these reactions are on Twitter and how rarely anything is done about it. Like maybe you all aren’t on Twitter so you think the mob just hand selects a victim, destroys their career, and then moves on to the next career they can destroy. Unfortunately, the “mob” reacts to literally everything. Every day, there is new drama, someone misspoke, someone is a racist, whatever whatever etc. 99% nothing happens. Why? Because most companies don’t actually care what Twitter thinks. Why? Because most companies don’t rely heavily on the public perception of their brand from millennials and a few gen x folks. Some do, sure. Chances are, you can post whatever crazy nonsense you want on Twitter and nothing will ever happen to you, even on the off chance a group of people hate it. Why did this guy get fired? Because his job, as minor as it is, is higher profile than 99% of the jobs in North America. That’s the game you play in that space. Most of you who are freaking out need not worry, you’ll never be high profile enough for this situation to ever matter to you.

Signed:
- OBC President, Charles Manson

I'm betting a company like MLSE gets a ton of complaints about a ton of people without firing them. what happened here was a guy was hired with some fanfare, a reporter decided to do some background checking, looked at his twitter feed and said "WTF - look at this". Really, compared to some topics, this really doesn't have much twitter attention.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Are there even transgender women who were not born female competing in women's sports? The only one I'm aware of is Quinn from the Canadian women's soccer team, and they were born a woman and are just non-binary. There's no concern about fairness there.

If anything, people should take serious moral issue with the "one name" thing.

This is almost completely a made up issue born out of transphobia and ignorance, which are currently very popular especially among feminists claiming to not be transphobic. (It's the classic "pro-life" spin again. I'm not against transwomen, I'm just for women.)

There was AFAIK exactly one male-to-female transgender person competing in the olympics this year, a weightlifter, who finished nowhere near the top, because once again physical gender doesn't actually work how people think it does. No one in this discussion probably even knew that this happened and why would they, because nobody actually gives a s*** about this one person out of 11,000. Not even the transphobes, because real people don't fit into their agenda.

The issue obviously isn't really about competition fairness at all, because any sane person knows that there's no way a man would go through the necessary hormone treatments just to transition into female sports, so this isn't going to become some major issue in sports in general. (You gotta get the hormone treatments because otherwise your testosterone levels wouldn't be at acceptable levels for you to compete.)

Just like no one is going transition just to harass women sexually in bathrooms (among other reasons because it's much easier to get away with sexual harassment as a man), but transphobes just don't have real issues to work with so they got to work with these strawmen.

It's not about being fair to women, it's just that people, even a lot of people who claim to accept trans people, don't actually want trans people to do anything more than quietly exist somewhere out of sight. Winning in sports would be too much.

EDIT:
Also, sports are not fair. The whole point of sports is that they're not fair, but that the best person wins.

This is the one and only benefit someone might get from being/becoming a transwoman, but even the theoretical possibility of that happening anywhere at any point in time, is enough to get the transphobes going.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Itse

This is almost completely a made up issue born out of transphobia and ignorance, which are currently very popular especially among feminists claiming to not be transphobic. (It's the classic "pro-life" spin again. I'm not against transwomen, I'm just for women.)

Yeah, this and bathrooms are what people who are just against trans seem to have latched onto, despite the former being a pretty scarce issue and the latter really being a non-issue.

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Well, unless you’re a member of a union with a CBA or had enough stroke to negotiate a fairly strong employment agreement yourself, anything you say publicly might cause your employer to fire you. It doesn’t mean they don’t have to compensate you but you are fired all the same.

Thanks. Using company policy as a defense for an employer presumably doesn't work too well if the policy is found to be discriminatory.

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Thanks. Using company policy as a defense for an employer presumably doesn't work too well if the policy is found to be discriminatory.

Well, sure, you can go to the Human Rights Tribunal over something like that. Of course it has to be discriminatory towards an identified group within the usual categories, akin to those in the Charter. That has happened for sure.
Still, the remedy is hardly ever "you keep your job".

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

Well, sure, you can go to the Human Rights Tribunal over something like that. Of course it has to be discriminatory towards an identified group within the usual categories, akin to those in the Charter. That has happened for sure.
Still, the remedy is hardly ever "you keep your job".

And, in any event, there is no evidence whatsoever that MLSE's actions in this case constituted discrimination under the Code.

[Hey Connor, It's Mess]

nm - wrong thread

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by GioforPM

I'm betting a company like MLSE gets a ton of complaints about a ton of people without firing them. what happened here was a guy was hired with some fanfare, a reporter decided to do some background checking, looked at his twitter feed and said "WTF - look at this". Really, compared to some topics, this really doesn't have much twitter attention.

Yup. I am not on Twitter/Facebook (because I am a luddite; apparently a wise luddite), but I can imagine plenty wanted Mitch Marner fired (into the sun, I get that his employment is not like most of us) after the last playoffs. Ditto for every coach and manager that ever existed.

Flames fired Peters. Because of "the mob"? Justified? Who cares. He was canned and compensated according to his contract. Many, many have suggested BT should be canned. So far the Flames haven't fired BT and I am guessing they don't really care what the mob thinks.

I don't get the immoral stance made by some. (To be clear, I have no formal philosophical training). It can't be causing harm to others, as any firing would likely cause harm. As another poster noted, getting the job probably caused harm to others. In addition, I have a hard time understanding the alternative. Management can't have the authority to fire someone for bad reasons or no reasons at all, so we then give that responsibility to government? Courts? Random Jay?

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Itse

No one in this discussion probably even knew that this happened and why would they, because nobody actually gives a s*** about this one person out of 11,000. Not even the transphobes, because real people don't fit into their agenda.

Well, also no one really cares about Olympic weightlifting unless there's some tangentially related thing to get mad about involved. Then apparently it's the end of the world.

The issue obviously isn't really about competition fairness at all, because any sane person knows that there's no way a man would go through the necessary hormone treatments just to transition into female sports, so this isn't going to become some major issue in sports in general. (You gotta get the hormone treatments because otherwise your testosterone levels wouldn't be at acceptable levels for you to compete.)

Way to bury the lede...

Look, I cannot stress enough how much I do not care that this happened. But your argument is terrible. The suggestion isn't that someone deliberately transitioned so that they could win a medal at the Olympics. The suggestion is that the person transitioned, and having done so, had an unfair advantage. I mean, no one was suggesting that Oscar Pistorius (pre-murderous rampage) had his feet amputated so that he could run faster, but the prosthetics he had actually did allow him to run faster, so he couldn't compete against non-blade runners.

In this case, it seems like the best argument in favour of transgender athletes is what you said at the end of the paragraph - there are requirements for testosterone levels, and that meeting these requirements means that transgender athletes do not have any advantage over cisgendered ones. Is that true in all sports? I'm not sure, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's close enough that it's not worth worrying about. No one seemed to want to disqualify Phelps because he happened to be born with size 14 feet and a 6'7" wingspan.

EDIT:
Also, sports are not fair. The whole point of sports is that they're not fair, but that the best person wins.

... This also seems like a pretty terrible argument. Sports are definitely supposed to be fair. That's why everyone got mad at Tim Peel and we bitched about NHL officiating and game management for thousands of posts.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

The suggestion isn't that someone deliberately transitioned so that they could win a medal at the Olympics. The suggestion is that the person transitioned, and having done so, had an unfair advantage. I mean, no one was suggesting that Oscar Pistorius (pre-murderous rampage) had his feet amputated so that he could run faster, but the prosthetics he had actually did allow him to run faster, so he couldn't compete against non-blade runners.

(I'm pretty tired so I'm going to put this very bluntly, it's not personal, I just don't have the time/energy to formulate a more elegant response.)

You're clearly not familiar with the discussion, because absolutely part of the argument is that people are transitioning or will transition to get an unfair advantage, and that womens sports will become so dominated by transwomen that ciswomen will not be able to compete.

Which is of course absurd, but it's still very much part of the argument.

Just like part of the argument to exclude transwomen from women's bathrooms is that men will transition so it will be easier to harass women.
Of course often it's the quiet part that's not said out loud, but people like JK Rowlings for example have been saying it out loud.

Just because an argument is stupid doesn't mean that transphobes aren't making it.

In this case, it seems like the best argument in favour of transgender athletes is what you said at the end of the paragraph - there are requirements for testosterone levels, and that meeting these requirements means that transgender athletes do not have any advantage over cisgendered ones. Is that true in all sports? I'm not sure, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's close enough that it's not worth worrying about. No one seemed to want to disqualify Phelps because he happened to be born with size 14 feet and a 6'7" wingspan.

... This also seems like a pretty terrible argument. Sports are definitely supposed to be fair. That's why everyone got mad at Tim Peel and we bitched about NHL officiating and game management for thousands of posts.

No, sports for a large part are not fair at all. Being tall is a really unfair advantage when playing basketball, and being short is a massive advantage if you're a weightlifter. Some sports require a broad physique while others require a slim physique, and that's just the way it is. As you said, no one thought Phelps should be disqualified even though he's pretty clearly a freak of nature.

When you get to the very top, most athletes are probably physiological outliers of some sort, and the variation between body types needed for different sports is a lot bigger than the average difference of a female and male body.

The odds that a transwomen would happen even be into a sport where his body type would be advantegous are not that great, and extremely few people have the inclination to try to compete at a top level even if they would have the right body type for it.

Then again, the more important points are these:
- It would be morally wrong to treat the bodies of transwomen as abhorrent outliers that are so different from all other physiological outliers that they specifically out of all people need to be banned from doing sports.
- Transwomen are not going to take over women's sports. This is just not a realistic possibility if you rule out the possibility of people transitioning for the purpose of becoming athlete. Otherwise the statistics just say that top trans athletes are going remain extremely rare, because the overalapping part of a venn diagram for two groups that are really small (top athletes and transwomen) is inevitably going to be extremely small.

- The whole talking point of transwomen in sports is not about sports anymore than gamergate was about games criticism. The intention of the argument is to get people to accept the idea that transwomen are not really women and that it's okay to ban them from female spaces because reasons.

The goal is not to protect ciswomens chances in sports, the goal is to say transphobic things and spread transphobic thoughts in what is for most people a low stakes context.