Discrimination against transgender people is still commonplace in many work environments, but more so in highly political government security related fields. Diane Schroer, is suing the Library of Congress for not getting an assignment because she had transitioned. The job was to support to run a new anti-terrorism organization.
He had been selected to organize and run a new, classified antiterrorism organization, and in that position he had routinely briefed Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. He had also briefed Vice President Dick Cheney more than once. Schroer had been an action hero, but he also had the contacts and intellectual dexterity to make him an ideal congressional analyst.But now, about three weeks before Schroer was to begin work at CRS, he told Preece over a Chinese lunch that he had a personal matter to reveal: after years of cross-dressing in private, he was preparing to start living full time as a woman. He would also probably have sex-reassignment surgery. And so he planned to start at CRS as Diane Jacqueline Schroer, not David John Schroer.
So granted this is in Time Magazine, but the article actually brings up some good points and reinforces that Schroer's gender has nothing to do with her ability to do the job.
According to Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act employment discrimination because of sex is illegal. This can potentially be stretched to cover transgender, but I am in the camp that believes their needs to be an explicitly stated law that makes discrimination against transgender/intersexed/middle-sex/gender non-conforming people illegal.
But I think this article brings up another issue and that is the connection between anti-terrorism and patriarchy. It is not just Schroer transitioned and was then discriminated against, but it was about the particular job she had been hired to do wherein her being a man was important. A strong, pro-war, tough on terror man or as the article says, "a super-hero." Anti-terrorism functions as an extension of military and government intelligence based on racist and sexist ideas about "terrorist" threat and masculinity. Not only is it attempting to negate the masculinity of supposed terrorists it is clear that there is a sense of paranoia and fear the notion of "terrorism" by foreign men of color brings to the white male ego.
This case relies on the intersection of race, gender and nation making not only the initial discrimination problematic, but the context of it telling of conditions for transgendered folks within the military and government system.
Thanks to Twanna for the link!
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Does the Civil Rights Act need to add "transgender" as a category?.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/9317
Would this fall under "don't ask, don't tell"? Or is that specifically for active duty military personnel?
Anyway, I agree with you. I think "transgender" or "gender identity" needs to be included in civil rights legislation. I don't think people see transgender people as straight or gay or as man or woman. So I don't think most people would stretch "sex" or "gender" to include transgender people.
If you test as being, genetically, 100% human you should have civil rights recognized by the government. Too much emphasis is put on factors that have no bearing on ones humanity.
DADT applies only to military personnel, as Diane Schroer is retired its irrelevant. Also DADT just covers gay and bisexual servicemembers, and doesn't cover transgendered individuals.
In a word Yes!. Gender Identity language doesn't just protect we trans folk as the recent incident of a butch women being thrown out of a hotel for trying to use the woman's rest room shows.
So granted this is in Time Magazine, but the article actually brings up some good points and reinforces that Schroer's gender has nothing to do with her ability to do the job.
I agree that the article, on the surface, does do these two things. However, it also says things like "her outward appearance is convincingly feminine — a testament to the advances in plastic surgery" and "her legs appeared so smooth that it seemed rough masculine hair had never grown on them."
My god, a transwoman who looks just like any other woman instead of a freakish mental horror from underneath the bed! The mind boggles.
So read in light of the two quotes I highlight, I question the 'good faith' behind those "good points." If Diane was not so "convincingly feminine," would the author have been willing to make the same argument? I have my suspicions.
Absolutely. Transpeople need more legal protection, and ASAP!
I think it's also important to recognize how trans folks have commonly been referred to as "spys" and "deceivers" that "infiltrate" cis society and corrupt it from within. Considering how we've been labeled as a kind of terrorist in the past, I think it's sadly no surprise that Diane was fired. And yes I feel gender identity should be added to the Civil Rights Act.