this post was submitted on 03 Apr 2025
64 points (100.0% liked)
LGBTQ+
6349 readers
38 users here now
All forms of queer news and culture. Nonsectarian and non-exclusionary.
See also this community's sister subs Feminism, Neurodivergence, Disability, and POC
Beehaw currently maintains an LGBTQ+ resource wiki, which is up to date as of July 10, 2023.
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Hed is accurate. You seem to be reading "after" as "because of." Very different meanings, which one learns early on in journalism, because the latter opens you up to a libel suit.
I've been forced into resigning given the other option being getting fired. We're seeing this all over the place at the federal level; your understanding of this set of events suggests a lack of familiarity with bureaucracy run by people who have ideological as opposed to civic goals.
Would you argue against 9/11 happening after the Second Punic War? Would that statement imply causation or just temporal facts?
But common language generally has effect followed by cause if there is a joining preposition between them. Just because a journalist isn't confused by it doesn't mean an average person wouldn't be. Words are cheap these days, it's not like the days of print where every word cost money. Journalism doesn't have to be terse at the expense of accuracy anymore. Plus it's really easy to clarify by saying "forced to resign", so just 2 words.
As for whether it's common to force people to resign when you can't fire them or not is irrelevant. This is firing or forcing to resign over who they are. If it was a cis-woman being fired/forced to resign for being a woman instead of a man, or a black person being forced to resign explicitly for not being white, would it have been allowed to happen? The method is irrelevant. It's not as if it was for performance related issues or even a political disagreement. This is for who she is at a basic level.
No argument to your second point.
"Forced to resign" is inaccurate, though. That was one of her options; I'd call it a dilemma, but one option was clearly better than the other, so that's inapplicable. You seem to have a reversed notion of accuracy, and while I could go on about media literacy at length, this is not the venue.
The other option was to risk being attacked at work along with all the children, many if whom would likely be killed or injured along with her. That's not an "option". That's like saying you have the option to either work so you can eat, or never work again, or eat, for the rest of your life. Sure it's an option. But not a viable one. She only got to choose how she would be forced out. Leave gracefully, or leave with the blood of children on her conscience. Not that it would be her fault, but if she survived, they surely would make it out to be her fault for not leaving. The threats to her life aren't going to stop. It's just now the children aren't going to be used as bloody pawns.
Not entirely sure what you're on about. When the options are "resign or be fired," there's no timeline for the sorts of scenarios you're inventing. Either choice, today's your last day.
There was no "be fired" option. They couldn't fire her for her gender, but they had to get rid of her or face possible retaliation from the representative or a school shooting or other attack from extremists.