So does Zenimax Studios have an explanation for this situation involving a Trans employee ?

tyrobia · July 2023

Cutedge wrote: »

Jammy420 wrote: »

Then it's even more outrageous considering Maryland is very progressive.

The fact that it's Maryland is why it's a huge mistake that Leona posted her video (and did so a month after flying the lawsuit, while the case was winding through the courts. I'm sure her lawyers are thrilled). Maryland has strict wiretapping laws. It's pretty clear from her video that the recordings weren't made by recording in teams, it was external audio that includes keyboard and background audio. If that recording was not authorized by all parties, and it is most likely that it wasn't (I can't imagine HR is going to be on board with it) than that is a felony. Not a misdemeanor, a FELONY. She took this audio, and then dropped said audio in a youtube video to try to specifically try to damage Zenimax, which actually makes the recordings "tortious purpose" and in that case even with consent it is a felony.

The best thing Leona could do here is drop this and hope it goes away. I can't begin to imagine what it is like to go through all the changes she is going through but the fact of the matter is that from ZOS' perspective, they had a worker who was able to do work and then went into a months long (year long?) period where they no longer completed any work, and straight up asked to work on "personal work" in order to get another job at the company rather than working on their assigned tasks. Having her resign so that she could keep her healthcare was the best option, and instead she broke the law and will be lucky if she doesn't go to prison.

Go ahead and revel in the idea that a vulnerable person might be punished on a technicality for trying to protect themselves. Someday you might even question why you want marginalized people to be harmed.

Cutedge · July 2023

Not sure where you got that I was reveling from my post but you do you.

Cutedge · July 2023

If you want my real honest opinion on this, it is this:

ZOS' IT department fought against their own tools trying to do things like rename a person's account username in a transactional log (perforce) as well as dealing with their own account systems (microsoft no doubt) and had great issues with it apparently. It doesn't surprise me that perforce kept reverting because it's undoubtedly not designed to allow that kind of change. They should have just made her new accounts and had her switch to said accounts. The fact that they didn't do this is kind of baffling. A new account would just work, and all work from that point forward would be attributed to that new account.

Now if the old name even being in the system is too problematic, than I don't really know what to say about that. I don't think that's reason enough to not do your job, and if that was the reason that they didn't do their job (this appears to be the case) than I think ZOS is within their grounds to go down a performance improvement plan. Leona should have tried for the other job in Zenimax and basically "started over" from there (would be a step up to work on a new project honestly). But you can't expect your employer to pay for that training when it's part of the reqs of the job.

The whole situation is sad. Maybe it could have ended differently without a lawsuit (she could have still tried for that Unreal job?) but instead she took a series of miscommunications, misunderstandings, and technical issues and turned it into an attack on ZOS by saying "ZOS IS A NIGHTMARISH HELLSCAPE FOR ALL TRANS PEOPLE". This is not even taking into account that there are most likely other trans people working at ZOS right now. There is nothing to revel in here. It's a lose lose for everyone.

Muizer · July 2023

Cutedge wrote: »

If you want my real honest opinion on this

That's the problem. I do not. I don't want anyone's opinion on it.Neither do I want to give one. Not here, anyway. This forum should not be turned into a court of public opinion on an issue that does not concern the game.

Ask yourself why anyone would make a public request/demand for a reaction from ZOS if not to leverage the opinions of the community? And why would moderation keep this thread open if not out of concern for public opinion?

But what are our opinions worth here? What makes us particularly qualified to pass judgement on anyone. Are we singularly well informed on the details? Have we got extensive experience in labor disputes or recognizing discrimination on the work floor? No. What we have to 'offer' is that we can create trouble for ZoS.

I won't give an opinion because I do not want to be abused in such a manner. If moderation is not going to put a stop to it, I guess it falls to us to make make that choice by not prolonging this discussion here or at least refrain from any kind of judgemental remarks.

It is not harmless. It is plain for everyone to see that the standards of moderation in this thread differ greatly from what we have come to expect. In some cases it seems even to be inverse, with innocuous posts being removed and political rhetoric being allowed to remain. I honestly don't know what is acceptable here anymore. For all I know this very post might get deleted for asking people not to be judgemental.

kaisernick · July 2023

Cutedge wrote: »

If you want my real honest opinion on this, it is this:

ZOS' IT department fought against their own tools trying to do things like rename a person's account username in a transactional log (perforce) as well as dealing with their own account systems (microsoft no doubt) and had great issues with it apparently. It doesn't surprise me that perforce kept reverting because it's undoubtedly not designed to allow that kind of change. They should have just made her new accounts and had her switch to said accounts. The fact that they didn't do this is kind of baffling. A new account would just work, and all work from that point forward would be attributed to that new account.

Now if the old name even being in the system is too problematic, than I don't really know what to say about that. I don't think that's reason enough to not do your job, and if that was the reason that they didn't do their job (this appears to be the case) than I think ZOS is within their grounds to go down a performance improvement plan. Leona should have tried for the other job in Zenimax and basically "started over" from there (would be a step up to work on a new project honestly). But you can't expect your employer to pay for that training when it's part of the reqs of the job.

The whole situation is sad. Maybe it could have ended differently without a lawsuit (she could have still tried for that Unreal job?) but instead she took a series of miscommunications, misunderstandings, and technical issues and turned it into an attack on ZOS by saying "ZOS IS A NIGHTMARISH HELLSCAPE FOR ALL TRANS PEOPLE". This is not even taking into account that there are most likely other trans people working at ZOS right now. There is nothing to revel in here. It's a lose lose for everyone.

I find the entire name changing suspect on Zenimax part.
As someone who works in IT i know that changing a name isnt a easy process but should not take ages (and our system is great tbh to begin with) but changing a name is a lot common than you think as when people get married ladies will if desired change their legal last name and i find it highly unlikly that this has not happend before at zenimax for them not to have a process in place.

glitter · July 2023

Danikat wrote: »

According to various media articles the situation is going to court, which might be why ZOS haven't made any kind of statement, even to say they're aware of the accusation. But I'm surprised they're not at least doing some type of damage control, even just saying they won't comment on on-going legal cases and expect it to be resolved in court.

I suppose I'll have to wait and see what the outcome of the legal proceedings are.

glitter wrote: »

Narvuntien wrote: »

ArchMikem wrote: »

Braffin wrote: »

As said before, I don't know if zos actions are legally correct, but they definitely leave me with some bad feelings. And I won't even comment about the transphobic statements from parts of the community. They're simply disgusting.

Companies retain the right to terminate employment for any reason and without giving notice why, it's in the agreement we all sign when we're hired. Whatever ZOS may or may not have done, I doubt was illegal.

What kind of hellscape is this? That isn't how it works anywhere else in the developed world

I mean it is in the US in alot of states. It's called an "At Will" employment situation. Its really common especially in tech, where entire teams get RIF'd when a project is shut down, or to make room for another one the company wants to start or just restructure in general. So it's both the company can release someone at will, or the employee can leave at will.

But it is kind of a hellscape. Like a friend of mine works in a cloud company, and what they do is the company keeps employees from leaving by offering RSUs on a two or four year cycle, then terminate the employees before they reach it. So that way they can pay less, because the wage is low but with literally like 200k of "bonuses" through the RSUs. Then since the RSUs are still in company possession after terminating the employee, they can keep reusing them to hire someone else. So huge company worth billions, but built by a workforce that almost totally turns over every 2-4 years.

It can cause a lot of legal problems when US companies start operating internationally because many Americans seem to assume their laws are universal, or that the entire company only has to follow the law of wherever their head office is based.

There are entire legal firms which exist to teach US companies how to operate in the EU, including explaining fairly basic things like the fact that all employees must have a contract and cannot sign away the right to things like maximum working hours and minimum vacation time. How to fire someone outside the US is a common topic.

Yes, like the same company I'm talking about ran into trouble in Germany.. like most of a project team in the US was RIF'd, and they found out that you couldn't do that in Germany, so they had to quickly walk it back and reassign all those people, which they found out they couldn't do either, which meant the employees just stayed in the same place but got HR assigned under a different director that the company had to hire for a "new" project. So they ended up losing more money by firing a handful US workers and having to hire a C level boss.

Twig_Garlicshine · July 2023

When I was in I.T. a decade ago:
Management: "We need a name change."
Me: "We can do it in a roundabout way, just not directly."
1/ I'll create a new account for them.
2/I'll give them access to an archive of all their email and other stuff, for this amount of time xxx.
They'll have to copy out stuff they need and recontact everyone from the new.
3/ If there are issues, tell them to let me know. There are workarounds.

P.S. Yes most corps do in fact have access to everything you say or do in their accounts and on their computers.
Nothing is private and we are required to do so by law.

Cutedge · July 2023

Muizer wrote: »

Cutedge wrote: »

If you want my real honest opinion on this

That's the problem. I do not. I don't want anyone's opinion on it.Neither do I want to give one. Not here, anyway. This forum should not be turned into a court of public opinion on an issue that does not concern the game.

I don't disagree and I wouldn't have even made that followup post if I didn't get the "you are reveling in this person punishment because you are a bigot" response from someone. This should have wound its way through the courts but that youtube video happened and this subsequent sshow.

Kesstryl · July 2023

Rampeal wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

It is transphobic to judge an entire demographic of people by it's most annoying individuals. It is transphobic if you don't support the cause of transgender people to be treated as equal to everyone else. It is transphobic to not grant Leona the same unbiased review of the facts as anyone else, rather than presuming her guilty of lying from the start.

What if my Religion forbids me from participating such behavior and thus forbids me from supporting it? Does their rights supercede my rights? To tell me how to think and feel?

And I do not presume Leona Innocent or Guilty. I just want stronger evidence than just word of mouth. A disgruntled employee being fired has to prove the reason for her being fired is because of her being Trans. The burden of proof lies on her, Not Zos.

And my religion teaches that loving your neighbor is the most important moral obligation we have. That when you love, you automatically fulfill all other obligations of religious law. That the higher power is love. Therefore I will always err on the side of love and not bigotry disguised as piousness. You're not doing your religion any service by persecuting certain groups of society because you think it's the pious thing to do.

Narvuntien · July 2023

I must not derail the thread to talk about unions I must not derail the thread to talk about unions.
*ahem*

Not being able to make a name change in a corporate IT system is one of those, "How does anything work ever?" situations, where it turns out the computer systems we rely on are just kind of taped together.

If that was genuinely a problem, and seeing the dead name was distressing as it often is, the response should have been one of apology and not attack for failing to do her work on time because the IT systems were failing on her. I want to know what is going on with HR, because one Trans-ignorant manager is one thing but it not getting properly sorted out until they were on the defensive against a possible lawsuit and because of the USA nightmare healthcare system, holding their medical insurance against them.

I will accept ZoS saying they can't comment because it is an ongoing lawsuit as an explanation, but they aren't even supplying that, they are just ignoring it.

Is there definitely a lawsuit? because didn't Leona sign the resignation in a way that prevented her from suing meaning public opinion is the only "court" that she can file in?

Uvi_AUT · July 2023

Narvuntien wrote: »

There are claims that a Trans Member of staff was fired, among other things, for being trans, at least taking medical leave for surgeries. From a company and a game that takes pride in being inclusive, this is very disappointing.

You cant take medical leave for elective procedures. You need to take vacation. And coordinating vacation is always a two way street.

spartaxoxo · July 2023

Uvi_AUT wrote: »

Narvuntien wrote: »

There are claims that a Trans Member of staff was fired, among other things, for being trans, at least taking medical leave for surgeries. From a company and a game that takes pride in being inclusive, this is very disappointing.

You cant take medical leave for elective procedures. You need to take vacation. And coordinating vacation is always a two way street.

There's a lot of assumption here that's it is an elective procedure. But, that doesn't depends on a variety of factors. It is certainly something some insurances will cover and healthcare professionals will recommend as medically necessary for that particular patient.

Uvi_AUT · July 2023

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Uvi_AUT wrote: »

Narvuntien wrote: »

There are claims that a Trans Member of staff was fired, among other things, for being trans, at least taking medical leave for surgeries. From a company and a game that takes pride in being inclusive, this is very disappointing.

You cant take medical leave for elective procedures. You need to take vacation. And coordinating vacation is always a two way street.

There's a lot of assumption here that's it is an elective procedure. But, that doesn't depends on a variety of factors. It is certainly something some insurances will cover and healthcare professionals will recommend as medically necessary for that particular patient.

Everything that isnt medically necessary is elective. For example all plastic surgery (other than restoring functionality) and almost all tooth-surgery.
Mental states are not a factor here. There has to be some cutoff-point what an employer has to grant and what not. Otherwise he wouldnt have any employees left.

Narvuntien · July 2023

Uvi_AUT wrote: »

Narvuntien wrote: »

There are claims that a Trans Member of staff was fired, among other things, for being trans, at least taking medical leave for surgeries. From a company and a game that takes pride in being inclusive, this is very disappointing.

You cant take medical leave for elective procedures. You need to take vacation. And coordinating vacation is always a two way street.

For Trans people, trans-affirming surgeries are often not actually elective in the traditional sense.

spartaxoxo · July 2023

Uvi_AUT wrote: »

Mental states are not a factor here.

FMLA covers mental health, and mental health is, in fact, a factor in determining what is medically necessary.

Edit:

From an article about when it's deemed medically necessary by insurers.

Leading medical organizations in the United States agree that gender-affirming care are the most effective treatment for gender dysphoria. The American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association have issued position statements supporting coverage for medically necessary treatment as determined by a patient and their health care provider.

Insurers tend to require at least one physician's letter documenting the patient's gender dysphoria and attesting to the procedure's medical necessity. Some require additional documentation, such as multiple letters from Ph.D.-level physicians, making the barrier to entry even higher for an already vulnerable patient population, Gallagher said.

Healthcare providers determine when something is medically necessary, including insurance companies. That's generally the cutoff. Employees needing medical care is a normal part of doing business.

Edit 2:

Also, I just double checked and the state provides coverage for it through Medicare when it is medically necessary. They also made it unlawful to professionally sanction someone for seeking it as a discrimination protection. It was already arguably unlawful in cases where's it been ruled as medically necessary, but I don't think that's really been solidified in court. Maryland just made it explicitly clear as LGBT discrimination protection.

Dr_Con · July 2023

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Uvi_AUT wrote: »

Mental states are not a factor here.

FMLA covers mental health, and mental health is, in fact, a factor in determining what is medically necessary.

Edit:

From an article about when it's deemed medically necessary by insurers.

Leading medical organizations in the United States agree that gender-affirming care are the most effective treatment for gender dysphoria. The American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association have issued position statements supporting coverage for medically necessary treatment as determined by a patient and their health care provider.

Insurers tend to require at least one physician's letter documenting the patient's gender dysphoria and attesting to the procedure's medical necessity. Some require additional documentation, such as multiple letters from Ph.D.-level physicians, making the barrier to entry even higher for an already vulnerable patient population, Gallagher said.

Healthcare providers determine when something is medically necessary, including insurance companies. That's generally the cutoff. Employees needing medical care is a normal part of doing business.

Edit 2:

Also, I just double checked and the state provides coverage for it through Medicare when it is medically necessary. They also made it unlawful to professionally sanction someone for seeking it as a discrimination protection. It was already arguably unlawful in cases where's it been ruled as medically necessary, but I don't think that's really been solidified in court. Maryland just made it explicitly clear as LGBT discrimination protection.

You're misquoting @Uvi_AUT in a dishonest way. edit: To be fair, UvI's inference is also wrong, but let's correct it here.

They said mental state did not determine whether or not gender reaffirming care is considered elective or not. You took a line completely out of context and applied it to a subject they weren't commenting on. This is only possible as you both seem to think that elective vs non elective means medically necessary vs not medically necessary, while this inference is simply a logical fallacy that needed to be corrected.

Elective doesn't mean whether or not something is important. It means whether or not it can be scheduled by the patient. Getting to choose the date on anything makes it elective- cardiac bypass surgery and blasting a kidney stone are examples.

In Leona's case, the initial procedure was in fact elective, while the subsequent ones to remove the medical tools have to happen within a specific timeframe regardless of Leona's or Zenimax's timetable, making them non-elective as Leona doesn't get to choose those dates. The employer was not prepared to handle the request and they need to work on ways to effectively facilitate or respond to these requests for the future

spartaxoxo · July 2023

Dr_Con wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Uvi_AUT wrote: »

Mental states are not a factor here.

FMLA covers mental health, and mental health is, in fact, a factor in determining what is medically necessary.

Edit:

From an article about when it's deemed medically necessary by insurers.

Leading medical organizations in the United States agree that gender-affirming care are the most effective treatment for gender dysphoria. The American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association have issued position statements supporting coverage for medically necessary treatment as determined by a patient and their health care provider.

Insurers tend to require at least one physician's letter documenting the patient's gender dysphoria and attesting to the procedure's medical necessity. Some require additional documentation, such as multiple letters from Ph.D.-level physicians, making the barrier to entry even higher for an already vulnerable patient population, Gallagher said.

Healthcare providers determine when something is medically necessary, including insurance companies. That's generally the cutoff. Employees needing medical care is a normal part of doing business.

Edit 2:

Also, I just double checked and the state provides coverage for it through Medicare when it is medically necessary. They also made it unlawful to professionally sanction someone for seeking it as a discrimination protection. It was already arguably unlawful in cases where's it been ruled as medically necessary, but I don't think that's really been solidified in court. Maryland just made it explicitly clear as LGBT discrimination protection.

You're misquoting in a dishonest way. edit: To be fair, UvI's inference is also wrong, but let's correct it here.

Uvi_AUT wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Uvi_AUT wrote: »

Narvuntien wrote: »

There are claims that a Trans Member of staff was fired, among other things, for being trans, at least taking medical leave for surgeries. From a company and a game that takes pride in being inclusive, this is very disappointing.

You cant take medical leave for elective procedures. You need to take vacation. And coordinating vacation is always a two way street.

There's a lot of assumption here that's it is an elective procedure. But, that doesn't depends on a variety of factors. It is certainly something some insurances will cover and healthcare professionals will recommend as medically necessary for that particular patient.

Everything that isnt medically necessary is elective. For example all plastic surgery (other than restoring functionality) and almost all tooth-surgery.
Mental states are not a factor here. There has to be some cutoff-point what an employer has to grant and what not. Otherwise he wouldnt have any employees left.

No, you're misquoting misrepresenting me in a dishonest way. The poster I replied to explicitly stated that the definition of elective they were working under was "everything that isn't medically necessary." I then responded to that line of reasoning by proving that gender affirming care IS considered medically necessary by both health care providers and the state of Maryland.

Edit:
This is relevant to Leona's case because cosmetic procedures are specifically excluded under the FMLA. So whether or not her surgery was cosmetic or medically necessary would be relevant information to her case. I was explicitly responding to the statement they made about medical necessity.

Edit 2:

The reason I highlighted what I did was because they said that mental health was not a factor. I figured this was where the confusion a lot of posters had about whether or not something is deemed medically necessary comes from. It's readily apparent it's not like needing a kidney. However, mental health is a factor in what is considered medically necessary. And gender affirming care is deemed medically necessary for mental health reasons as the general consensus of the medical community.

RaikaNA · July 2023

Kesstryl wrote: »

Rampeal wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

It is transphobic to judge an entire demographic of people by it's most annoying individuals. It is transphobic if you don't support the cause of transgender people to be treated as equal to everyone else. It is transphobic to not grant Leona the same unbiased review of the facts as anyone else, rather than presuming her guilty of lying from the start.

What if my Religion forbids me from participating such behavior and thus forbids me from supporting it? Does their rights supercede my rights? To tell me how to think and feel?

And I do not presume Leona Innocent or Guilty. I just want stronger evidence than just word of mouth. A disgruntled employee being fired has to prove the reason for her being fired is because of her being Trans. The burden of proof lies on her, Not Zos.

And my religion teaches that loving your neighbor is the most important moral obligation we have. That when you love, you automatically fulfill all other obligations of religious law. That the higher power is love. Therefore I will always err on the side of love and not bigotry disguised as piousness. You're not doing your religion any service by persecuting certain groups of society because you think it's the pious thing to do.

My religion also teaches us to love your neighbors as yourself, but it also teaches us to stand firm to our beliefs and stand our ground.

spartaxoxo · July 2023

As a Christian, I treat all demographics of people with love. As an American, I also believe in our constitution. I also look at this quote from our declaration of independence as a literal founding principle.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

FantasticFreddie · July 2023

RaikaNA wrote: »

Kesstryl wrote: »

Rampeal wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

It is transphobic to judge an entire demographic of people by it's most annoying individuals. It is transphobic if you don't support the cause of transgender people to be treated as equal to everyone else. It is transphobic to not grant Leona the same unbiased review of the facts as anyone else, rather than presuming her guilty of lying from the start.

What if my Religion forbids me from participating such behavior and thus forbids me from supporting it? Does their rights supercede my rights? To tell me how to think and feel?

And I do not presume Leona Innocent or Guilty. I just want stronger evidence than just word of mouth. A disgruntled employee being fired has to prove the reason for her being fired is because of her being Trans. The burden of proof lies on her, Not Zos.

And my religion teaches that loving your neighbor is the most important moral obligation we have. That when you love, you automatically fulfill all other obligations of religious law. That the higher power is love. Therefore I will always err on the side of love and not bigotry disguised as piousness. You're not doing your religion any service by persecuting certain groups of society because you think it's the pious thing to do.

My religion also teaches us to love your neighbors as yourself, but it also teaches us to stand firm to our beliefs and stand our ground.

Is it your belief that telling employees their coworkers private medical information is appropriate?

RaikaNA · July 2023

I'm not sure what you mean... I wasn't talking about Medical information and HIPPA laws.

Vulsahdaal · July 2023

Narvuntien wrote: »

Uvi_AUT wrote: »

Narvuntien wrote: »

There are claims that a Trans Member of staff was fired, among other things, for being trans, at least taking medical leave for surgeries. From a company and a game that takes pride in being inclusive, this is very disappointing.

You cant take medical leave for elective procedures. You need to take vacation. And coordinating vacation is always a two way street.

For Trans people, trans-affirming surgeries are often not actually elective in the traditional sense.

Im not so sure about that. For us Aged people, we are told that age-affirming surgeries are indeed elective. Be nice if it werent, but unfortunately thats the way it is.

FantasticFreddie · July 2023

RaikaNA wrote: »

I'm not sure what you mean... I wasn't talking about Medical information and HIPPA laws.

I'm talking about this situation here. Is this covered under "standing your ground" as a good Christian warrior?

ValerraTheProwler · July 2023

kaisernick · July 2023

RaikaNA wrote: »

Kesstryl wrote: »

Rampeal wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

It is transphobic to judge an entire demographic of people by it's most annoying individuals. It is transphobic if you don't support the cause of transgender people to be treated as equal to everyone else. It is transphobic to not grant Leona the same unbiased review of the facts as anyone else, rather than presuming her guilty of lying from the start.

What if my Religion forbids me from participating such behavior and thus forbids me from supporting it? Does their rights supercede my rights? To tell me how to think and feel?

And I do not presume Leona Innocent or Guilty. I just want stronger evidence than just word of mouth. A disgruntled employee being fired has to prove the reason for her being fired is because of her being Trans. The burden of proof lies on her, Not Zos.

And my religion teaches that loving your neighbor is the most important moral obligation we have. That when you love, you automatically fulfill all other obligations of religious law. That the higher power is love. Therefore I will always err on the side of love and not bigotry disguised as piousness. You're not doing your religion any service by persecuting certain groups of society because you think it's the pious thing to do.

My religion also teaches us to love your neighbors as yourself, but it also teaches us to stand firm to our beliefs and stand our ground.

you can guarantee that if the same person was forbidden to take time off for a religous holiday they would be screaming foul play.

As ususal its always "what about me" that they care about.

Eldartar · July 2023

Narvuntien wrote: »

There are claims that a Trans Member of staff was fired, among other things, for being trans, at least taking medical leave for surgeries. From a company and a game that takes pride in being inclusive, this is very disappointing.

Apperently it was on Reddit for a week but I didn't notice it

Jim Stephanie Sterling's video brought it to my attention.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ko8khiV3C4Y

Claims do not mean fact. More sources of information, FACTUAL information not peoples guesses and assumptions are needed.

I_killed_Vivec · July 2023

Eldartar wrote: »

Claims do not mean fact. More sources of information, FACTUAL information not peoples guesses and assumptions are needed.

Meanwhile, it is perfectly valid to say "If these claims are true, then..."

tyrobia · July 2023

Dr_Con wrote: »

spartaxoxo wrote: »

Uvi_AUT wrote: »

Mental states are not a factor here.

FMLA covers mental health, and mental health is, in fact, a factor in determining what is medically necessary.

Edit:

From an article about when it's deemed medically necessary by insurers.

Leading medical organizations in the United States agree that gender-affirming care are the most effective treatment for gender dysphoria. The American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association have issued position statements supporting coverage for medically necessary treatment as determined by a patient and their health care provider.

Insurers tend to require at least one physician's letter documenting the patient's gender dysphoria and attesting to the procedure's medical necessity. Some require additional documentation, such as multiple letters from Ph.D.-level physicians, making the barrier to entry even higher for an already vulnerable patient population, Gallagher said.

Healthcare providers determine when something is medically necessary, including insurance companies. That's generally the cutoff. Employees needing medical care is a normal part of doing business.

Edit 2:

Also, I just double checked and the state provides coverage for it through Medicare when it is medically necessary. They also made it unlawful to professionally sanction someone for seeking it as a discrimination protection. It was already arguably unlawful in cases where's it been ruled as medically necessary, but I don't think that's really been solidified in court. Maryland just made it explicitly clear as LGBT discrimination protection.

You're misquoting @Uvi_AUT in a dishonest way. edit: To be fair, UvI's inference is also wrong, but let's correct it here.

They said mental state did not determine whether or not gender reaffirming care is considered elective or not. You took a line completely out of context and applied it to a subject they weren't commenting on. This is only possible as you both seem to think that elective vs non elective means medically necessary vs not medically necessary, while this inference is simply a logical fallacy that needed to be corrected.

Elective doesn't mean whether or not something is important. It means whether or not it can be scheduled by the patient. Getting to choose the date on anything makes it elective- cardiac bypass surgery and blasting a kidney stone are examples.

In Leona's case, the initial procedure was in fact elective, while the subsequent ones to remove the medical tools have to happen within a specific timeframe regardless of Leona's or Zenimax's timetable, making them non-elective as Leona doesn't get to choose those dates. The employer was not prepared to handle the request and they need to work on ways to effectively facilitate or respond to these requests for the future

We can tapdance around the meaning of "elective" all we want but it doesn't change anything. This thread started with a criticism from the "gender critical" types that Leona's surgeries were "elective" (comparing them to vanity cosmetic surgery - in other words, frivolous) and thus the company was well within their right to fire her for needing too much time off. Then when these types were called on that, goal posts were moved and suddenly we were talking about the strict definition of "elective surgery" meaning any surgery that can be scheduled in advance.

By the strict definition, nearly every surgery performed in the United States is "elective" (about 90% of them are). And yes, companies OFTEN use this idea as a means of denying employees insurance coverage or PTO for these procedures. This doesn't make it right, but usually it's pretty easy to do, even for someone that has a life-threatening condition like cancer.

In this case, however, we are talking about a vulnerable person who is part of a protected class facing a situation in which her surgeries were part of her protected status. Others on this thread have already explained multiple times that modern medicine understands that gender-affirming care of this nature is medically necessary.

So, if anyone wants to take a pedantic, black-and-white, no-nuance view of this situation, it should be that ZoS appears to have made it extremely difficult if not impossible for Leona to schedule her medically-necessary, constitutionally protected health care around her work.

Does ZoS understand that they have violated an employee's civil rights? Do they understand that the class this employee is a part of is in particular danger right now? What are they going to do about it?

I have to say that anyone arguing over semantics in this conversation DOES NOT WANT the above questions asked OR answered, whether about ZoS or about trans people in general.

Again, the only way that this situation, or other situations like it, get resolved is by not shutting up about them. It doesn't matter if this is annoying to people not directly affected, it doesn't matter if they think that it's uselessly "screaming into the void" (guess what, it's not, anyway). It has to be done.

spartaxoxo · July 2023

Tyrobius wrote: »

I have to say that anyone arguing over semantics in this conversation DOES NOT WANT the above questions asked OR answered, whether about ZoS or about trans people in general.

A few minor illnesses that FMLA does not cover include the following:

Cold and flu
Upset stomach or a minor ulcer
Earaches
Non-migraine headaches
Ordinary dental or orthodontic issues
Cosmetic procedures
However, it is essential to note that these conditions are not automatically excluded from FMLA coverage as they may be symptoms of a more severe illness

Absolutely. You'll notice that her care doesn't fall under this category. So why should she have a ton of roadblocks at receiving it? Employees need surgery sometimes. It is a protected workers right to get the surgery they need. All employees.

demonology89 · July 2023

In a different world, ZOS wouldn't need to provide any explanation and this thread would have been shut down. This has absolutely nothing to do with the ESO game.

But go ahead with your torches and pitchforks and your frothing at the mouth to condemn the ESO team and your fellow ESO community members by forcing them to speak on things that didn't involve them. All hail the court of public opinion! /s