TS VS Library of Congress

[saifan]

Sorry if this is a repost...
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/09/19/transsexual.discrimination/index.html

[SarahG]

Sorry if this is a repost...
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/09/19/transsexual.discrimination/index.html

Interesting article.

I have a few comments regarding it:

I couldn't find what DC's current position is in terms of anti-discrimination legislation. Is gender expression covered in the law itself?

If not, I am willing to bet this case will be over turned:


"The evidence established that the Library was enthusiastic about hiring David Schroer -- until she disclosed her transsexuality," Robinson wrote. "The Library revoked the offer when it learned that a man named David intended to become, legally, culturally and physically, a woman named Diane. This was discrimination 'because of ... sex.' "

The courts have been relatively consistent that it is NOT sex discrimination in the United States when someone is discriminated against because of being trans, we fall under the "gender expression" and "gender identity" terms which, in many cases, never get into the discrimination laws.



Further in the article...



After Schroer had retired from the military, she applied for a job at the Library of Congress. Court records show that Schroer, then a male, took her future boss to lunch to outline her transition to a female, as she planned to present herself as a female on her first day of the job.

Schroer testified that on the day after the lunch, the job offer was rescinded, and she was told she wasn't a "good fit" for the library.

I by no means condone the LOC's actions in all this. They were wrong, blatantly so, and unnecessarily since this person was obviously qualified for the position.

I kind of feel Schroer used some poor judgment here... again, this does not by any means excuse the LOCs actions, but if you're planning to go FT on the first day of work- why would you possibly go to the interview presenting as a guy?

The odds are the LOC would have known the situation and acted no differently- especially if she doesn't pass (don't know the details there), has a long resume with a male name being used, or hasn't had her name changed by the time of the interview.

But it does seem that trans employees who go to get a job w/out taking care of their papers first, interview in guymode, only to expect to suddenly go fulltime after the weekend- are stacking the odds of something bad occurring (like discrimination/wrongful termination) against their favor. It also sends mixed messages to the employer, because presenting isn't being done consistently and it proliferates the stereotype that everyone just "impulsively changes their clothes" after a weekend and is then fulltime (ignoring the years of the process leading up to that). I really don't see how the "weekend transition" stereotype helps anyone, from either side of this debate. All it does is mislead & confuse people who don't know about trans issues.

Again I am not saying this should be blamed on her, or that LOC is off the hook- but trans applicants need to be proactive in lowering the odds of stuff like this from happening.

At the same time I do have to wonder if she'd have won the case at all if she hadn't gone to the interview in guymode, as it sounds from the article as if the evidence that the LOC was initially excited to hire her (until they found out she was trans), was critical in winning the case.

On that note it would be interesting if we could get some news outfit to investigate the prevailancy of trans job discrimination by having undercover ggs go interview with hidden cams and then, at the end, come out as trans. The change in face when an employer hears the information would show this really is about discriminatory bias, and the investigation could wait and see how many of these fake-trans applicants get rejection letters 2 weeks after the interview. It would also show which employers really are tolerant in their hiring practices (company policies and real actions being two different things).

[Ashley]

I kind of feel Schroer used some poor judgment here... again, this does not by any means excuse the LOCs actions, but if you're planning to go FT on the first day of work- why would you possibly go to the interview presenting as a guy?

? I don't see that as poor judgement at all. Do you really think she would have helped chances of getting the job by interviewing as a woman? All of her experience and credentials are as a man, so she wanted to make she she would get the job. It makes perfect sense to me.

And it's only because she chose to do this that she was able to bring it to court! If she had interviewed as a woman and was denied the job there's no way she could challenge it in court---they could make up any old reason for not hiring her.

If she hadn't done exactly this we wouldn't be reading about it here today!

[Ashley]

Oh wow! My roommate contacted her and they're having lunch Wednesday! I asked if I could tag along---I want to make a vlog or something. Anything you guys think I should ask?

\Living in DC rocks

[Alyssa87]

Oh wow! My roommate contacted her and they're having lunch Wednesday! I asked if I could tag along---I want to make a vlog or something. Anything you guys think I should ask?

\Living in DC rocks

sooo where does she work now?

[Ashley]

sooo where does she work now?

Good question. No idea---add that one to the list.

Wouldn't surprise me if she's unemployed right now.

[SarahG]

Do you really think she would have helped chances of getting the job by interviewing as a woman? All of her experience and credentials are as a man, so she wanted to make she she would get the job. It makes perfect sense to me.

Granted I don't know all the details, none of us do, but I- and this is just my opinion here, view it as bad judgment for a few reasons.

Her resume is probably all under an older name, assuming her name has been changed already (we don't know all the specifics so I will assume that has been done by now). There are ways that could have been handled differently, for instance using a first initial instead of the full first name, she could have (or already did, I have no idea) contact all the prior institutions on the resume so they know only to use the first initial, she could have while talking to them, asked how they would handle the situation when perspective employers call seeking more information. It pays to do that homework first, which may or may not have happened here (I don't know).

But that's really not where I disagree with the way she did things, I disagree with her decision on going to the interview in guymode because it sends mixed messages and confuses people who don't know about trans issues.

I only really have my own experiences to go off of in saying this, but in my experience I can see a notable change in the way people interact with me depending on how I've presented to them in the past. If someone has only ever seen me in girlmode, even if I come out to them- they're generally more likely to be understanding and more likely to keep from accidentally using the wrong name or pronouns (etc), than the people I have dealt with who have known me since before I went fulltime.

The last thing you (EDIT- you as in anyone reading this, my editorial commentary isn't aimed at anyone specifically) want to do is confuse someone who doesn't know about trans issues by giving the impression that transitioning is an impulsive decision, or something that just has (or hasn't yet) begun for you yet. You have to remember we see things differently from people who aren't trans, and to a perspective employer (especially one in a socially conservative setting like the one in this story) its gonna be a mind fuck if they see you in guymode one day, then see you in girlmode the next. If you're consistent from day1- they know who you are, they know what your situation is, there are no surprises, and there is no mass-speculation of "what Monday is going to be like" or "what you'll look like on Monday." But I will readily agree, this is one of those situations where the more passable the trans applicant is, the smoother things are going to go. If the applicant looks like a 50 yr old ex-nfl player in a dress w/out hrt, electro or makeup then the employer is probably going to be even more intolerant because they're going to wonder what effect there will be on customers, coworkers, and the environment (that doesn't excuse discrimination, I am just trying to express what is going on in these employers' minds when issues like this come up- usually these concerns are unfounded, exaggerated, and baseless- and even when they're not, that doesn't mean discrimination becomes ethical in those situations).

When someone tells a boss "oh hey, I am going to go fulltime on Monday" on a Friday, when they haven't changed their name yet, haven't gone through the stuff that usually comes before going fullltime, it causes avoidable drama.

My point, if there is one, is that if there is a chance to avoid drama by doing things one way instead of another, take it- and I think for a lot of people, going on hrt for a while first, getting electro done, moving on to the name change, going ft- and then applying is probably going to make things smoother even if you have a 30 pg resume in another name.

I know a lot of girls who have outted themselves to employers (when being hired or a year or two after the fact) to tell them that they're going to transition in the future (as in it hasn't happened yet) when nothing is going to change or be even a hint of an issue in the short term, but for what?

Now what I was really trying to get across in my first post, perhaps this was lost so I'll reiterate it here- is that it really doesn't matter how people do things, that doesn't give employers a blank check. Even if this was approached the worst possible way (which it wasn't) by the girl applying, that doesn't mean the LOC can just go "well, we don't hire freaks here- you know where the door is"


And it's only because she chose to do this that she was able to bring it to court! If she had interviewed as a woman and was denied the job there's no way she could challenge it in court---they could make up any old reason for not hiring her.


It is possible, like I already acknowledged, that if she had done things any other way it would not have gotten to court, or not succeeded if it had.

But they did make up "any old reason for not hiring her"- they said that she wouldn't be a good fit, they didn't say they were refusing to hire her because she is trans (even if the difference is semantics and even if it is obvious that her being trans was the real reason).


If she hadn't done exactly this we wouldn't be reading about it here today!

We don't know that, that would be speculation. This girl was so well qualified she would have had a pretty strong case even if she went to the interview in girlmode.

If I don't hire a perspective employee, and turn around and hire someone 5 times less qualified, you bet the first employee has a pretty good case against me, especially if the only difference (outside of resumes) between the two is that one was a minority and the hired one was not.

The courts absolutely need to get tough on job discrimination, but don't count on it- not because girls are going to interviews in girlmode, but because "gender identity" and "gender expression" are usually not part of discrimination protections. I still don't know if DC has either mentioned in existing laws, if it doesn't- this girl's nightmare, and the court ruling may be for nothing.

[Ashley]

No disrespect but your response make no sense in this context. I get what you're saying in general, which I agree with. But in this context, your approach would have not worked and we would not have had this lawsuit.

She was in the military! It's not like she could pretend she was a gg who had served!

Because she interviewed as a man (and it was understood she would get the job) and then later came out as trans LEGALLY a judge could see how she was discriminated based on her transgender status. If she had interviewed as a trans woman she would have never been offered the job in the first place and there would be no case. Or a much weaker case. It would have been much more difficult to prove that discrimination occurred.

...which you admit. But you still think it was a bad idea? What's better, to reduce confusion or win a landmark discrimination lawsuit? She made the right decision how can you not see that?

You say 'semantics'? Goodness! That's the law! The law is made up of a bunch of words that lawyers are paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to interpret and debate. A bunch of words! Semantics---They matter!

*sigh*

I know what you're trying to say but you're forcing it on this one. Not to mention if she had done it your "right" way, we would not have had this historic case. Unbelievable.

[SarahG]

No disrespect but your response make no sense in this context.


You might be right, its hard to say because we're hearing very little of the specifics regarding this story. Well- you've seen the articles from the media, they're tiny and brief.

If it doesn't apply to this situation, fine- but I brought it up because:
1) I don't know if it does apply or not and given that
2) I think the information is relevant to anyone who would, in reading this thread, think it was an ideal way to approach being a trans job applicant which in many situations, simply isn't realistic.



...which you admit. But you still think it was a bad idea?

I think it would depend on information I already said I just don't know, because the coverage hasn't been in depth enough to say.

We don't know all the facts here, there is a lot that can impact if this was a bad idea (and if so, how bad).



What's better, to reduce confusion or win a landmark discrimination lawsuit?


Since you, I am guessing, live in DC- do you know if "gender identity" or "gender expression" exist under DC's discrimination laws?



Not to mention if she had done it your "right" way, we would not have had this historic case. Unbelievable.

For all we know, the LOC decided not to hire her- not because she is trans, but because she waited so long to say "oh by the way, now that I've practically been hired- I am going to be walking in as a girl on my first day, you know on monday"

She might have been hired had she been up front from the very start- but that would be something we'll never know now.

The LOC could very easily have been disillusioned with her after the way things played out, thinking they had been had, or that she wasn't being upfront, or wasn't trusting them enough to explain it to them right away.

THIS DOES NOT EXCUSE THE LOC'S BEHAVIOR HOWEVER (in all caps to make sure people reading this thread realize explaining and excusing actions are totally different). They were wrong, period.

[gimmeurblood]

i work at the L.O.C. I've seen the people they hire, and they can use all the good help they can get. I'd like to see where this thread goes
Please keep usinformed

[peggygee]

Interested readers may want to peruse the judge's written decision. (http://www.nctequality.org/Resources/SchroerDecision.pdf)

In it the rationale and reasoning for his decision are outlined, along
with all of the factual matters and particulars of the case.

[SarahG]

Interested readers may want to peruse the judge's written decision. (http://www.nctequality.org/Resources/SchroerDecision.pdf)

In it the rationale and reasoning for his decision are outlined, along
with all of the factual matters and particulars of the case.

Thank you for the link, my comments follow:


When Schroer applied for the terrorism specialist position, she had been diagnosed with gender identity disorder and was working with a licensed clinical social worker, Martha Harris, to develop a medically appropriate plan for transitioning from male to female. .... Because she had not yet begun presenting herself as a woman on a full-time basis, however, she applied for the position as “David J. Schroer,” her legal name at the time. In October 2004, two months after submitting her application, Schroer was invited to interview with three members of the CRS staff ...Schroer attended the interview dressed in traditionally masculine attire -– a sport coat and slacks with a shirt and tie.



About a half hour into their lunch, Schroer told Preece that she needed to discuss a “personal matter.” Tr. at 57. She began by asking Preece if she knew what “transgender” meant. Preece responded that she did, and Schroer went on to explain that she was transgender, that she would be transitioning from male to female, and that she would be starting work as “Diane.” Preece’s first reaction was to ask, “Why in the world would you
want to do that?” Tr. at 57, 110. Schroer explained that she did not see being transgender as a choice and that it was something she had lived with her entire life. Preece then asked her a series of questions, starting with whether she needed to change Schroer’s name on the hiring documentation.


So basically the details are essentially what I had guessed: she hadn't started to transition yet, her name hadn't been changed when she applied, she wasn't fulltime- and didn't tell her employers anything about her situation for months.

When she did tell them, after basically getting the job, it caused sudden confusion (see last sentence of the second quote).

In my opinion she showed bad judgment in how all this played out for a few reasons, she obviously hadn't transitioned yet, her name hadn't been changed, and it sounds like she was rushing going fulltime in order to mitigate any confusion created by her change in presenting at work.

This shows;

1- the reason why she applied using a male name and in guymode wasn't to get a better chance at getting the job, but because she was pre-everything and hadn't changed her name yet.
2- She obviously cares about the confusion that comes from being inconsistent in how she presents to people, yet she interviewed as a guy and then waited months once she practically had the job to out herself.
3- Going fulltime wasn't because she was ready per say, but because she thought it would help to be consistent in presenting before coworkers from the start.

Why is this bad? In my view she jumped the gun in outting herself and going fulltime. She could have continued working the way she had presented herself to the interview while in the background waiting for hrt to work, getting electro done, getting her name changed- all the things that don't require FT but nonetheless are important steps. Outting herself in the interview process is going to be inclined to risk problems (even if there are discrimination policies and laws), its not as if no one has ever transitioned on the job, or never done so while in the federal government's employment.

This isn't the UK where they make you go fulltime for great lengths of time before letting you have HRT, you don't have to rush being fulltime in order to get past gatekeeping medical doctors. It is precisely doing things in this order that causes avoidable, unnecessary drama- and for what benefit?

I know, some will read what I have to say and think this makes the LOC justified. It doesn't, the LOC totally fucked up, and hopefully will have to pay for it. They had nothing to gain and everything to lose by their bigotry, in forcing the best qualified talent to go elsewhere, risking litigation, all kinds of stress, trouble and cost for nothing.


There is another way in which this is bad judgment that I have not already mentioned. When a trans person brings trans issues into the court system they're playing legal roulette. Sure, without her doing things this way we may not have gotten this "landmark ruling," but there was no way she could have known it would have worked.

Playing roulette with the courts is risky, not because you don't always win, but because when you don't win it adds precedent to our case law in ways that hurt trans rights in the long run. We already know the Bush admin has been stacking the department of justice to be anti-LGBT, and the supreme court has had two Bush appointments on top of that. There is no telling if this ruling will be appealed and overturned, and the absolute LAST thing we need is it going to the conservative fundamentalist Bush supreme court to be overturned with a ruling to set back the whole trans reform movement in one penstroke at the same time (you'd be crazy if you think it can't happen or isn't a risk).



Which brings me to the part that has had me most concerned for the future- the end of the ruling:


Conclusion

In refusing to hire Diane Schroer because her appearance and background did not comport with the decisionmaker’s sex stereotypes about how men and women should act and appear, and in response to Schroer’s decision to transition, legally, culturally, and physically, from male to female, the Library of Congress violated Title VII’s prohibition on sex discrimination.


Do you realize how much case law there is saying that this is NOT considered sex discrimination in the United States? Even if we disagree with the idea of it being a matter of "gender expression" or "gender identity"- the legal world doesn't easily agree with our logic there.

It would be very easy for the LOC to appeal this and have it overturned, because it was a shaky ruling. This can only possibly be a landmark case if it is appealed to a higher level and then allowed to stand, and it doesn't look very hopeful there if going by the mountains of cases that have established that it is not sex discrimination when a trans employee is fired, but a case of discrimination based on "gender expression" or "gender identity"- neither of which, as far as I can find, are protected in DC, and certainly aren't by the feds.

Her case acknowledges that (btw "gender expression" never appears in the document linked in this thread) and argues that "gender identity" discrimination is really gender stereotyping discrimination hence:


The second is that discrimination on the basis of gender identity is literally discrimination “because of . . . sex.” ....



In other words, “a Price-Waterhouse claim could not be supported by facts showing that [an adverse employment action] resulted solely from [the plaintiff’s] disclosure of her gender dysphoria.” ...



What makes Schroer’s sex stereotyping theory difficult is that, when the plaintiff is transsexual, direct evidence of discrimination based on sex stereotypes may look a great deal like discrimination based on transsexuality itself, a characteristic that, in and of itself, nearly all federal courts have said is unprotected by Title VII.


Basically what the judge wrote is she is not protected against trans-based job discrimination at all, neither before, during, or after the ruling.

And she was not hired "because they thought she wouldn't pass and thus wouldn't be taken seriously in congress"(see ~p25-27)- and the court's stance on that is that she is protected against that type of discrimination just as an extra masculine, but not trans GG would be protected if an employer turned such a girl down for the same reason.

BUT if she did pass, and was not hired simply "because she's a transsexual" - well that kind of discrimination is ok because the feds, have no trans discrimination protections. [Can I say what the fuck at this point?!]

[peggygee]

Interested readers may want to peruse the judge's written decision. (http://www.nctequality.org/Resources/SchroerDecision.pdf)

In it the rationale and reasoning for his decision are outlined, along
with all of the factual matters and particulars of the case.

Thank you for the link.......

You are most welcome. :wink:

I may be presenting a post judgement amicus curiae brief as well.

As folks may presume, I have some thoughts on the ramifications
of the case.

[tgirlzoe]

Okay, some people might hate on me for this one. I skimmed the brief so I hope I didn't miss anything obvious.

I disagree with the judge. General precedent has been that discrimination against transsexuals is not the same as discrimination based on sex. Some places and corporations have policies about discrimination based on "gender identity" but this is not the case here.

I know this is a case of the government judging itself but imagine this was a private company. The government forcing a company to keep someone employed who decides to do something like this. It's generally not in the best interest of the company to have this happen. What would happen if the individual was in charge of managing relations with other corporations at business lunches, golf games, etc. and showed up in a skirt one day? It is very likely the business relationships would suffer.

The individual was already planning to transition when she had the interview. She withheld vital information until she was sure she had the job and then sprung it on them. Then, when they reacted negatively, she sued. This is wrong.

[Shining Star]

As someone who has been down this road (well ok, was living already as a "woman", since college), the trans-woman in question was almost dammed if she didn't tell at the interview, and dammed if she took the job then sprung things on them.

One knows all to well what it is like to be hired for a position, then a few days, weeks or months later told "this isn't working out" or some other such reason, indeed if a reason is given at all, and then shown the door. Have also known what is like to be offered, or nearly offered a position after numerous interviews,only to be contacted a day or so later to be told "we went with another person).

Obviously in most, if not all cases a transgender person was hired because HR thought it was a woman, then when background checks, and or comments form around the office prove otherwise, things hit the fan.

IIRC by law, new hires are most always on probation for a period of several months. During that time one can be fired without any reason being given.

Then there is the added stress for a transperson showing up for work and trying to "pass" as a GG, which is how things were normally done. Today many transgender persons simply choose to be hired as just that, which removes a huge weight off their minds, and reduces stress. Not having to pretend one is a natural man or woman allows one to get on with the job one was hired to perform. It also removes the risk of being terminated for NOT being what one said one was on a job application.

The person in question faced several choices. Accept the job offer (if it came), as a man, and continue transitioning in stealth, risking all manner and sorts of comments from co-workers, and the risk of being fired later on. Or, simply come out with the facts and get things over with, and let the cards fall where they may.

Things would also have gotten complicated if the trans-woman began submitting medical insurance claims for things such as female hormones and other trans-treatments to be covered by insurance. In short sooner or later, things may have gotten difficult or at least interesting.

Yes, showing up at a final interview as a man, and then going on to tell that one was going to show up at work as a trans-woman may not been seen by some as a wise move. But given points laid out as above, what choice did the girl have?

[SarahG]

Okay, some people might hate on me for this one. I skimmed the brief so I hope I didn't miss anything obvious.

I disagree with the judge. General precedent has been that discrimination against transsexuals is not the same as discrimination based on sex. Some places and corporations have policies about discrimination based on "gender identity" but this is not the case here.

I know this is a case of the government judging itself but imagine this was a private company. The government forcing a company to keep someone employed who decides to do something like this. It's generally not in the best interest of the company to have this happen. What would happen if the individual was in charge of managing relations with other corporations at business lunches, golf games, etc. and showed up in a skirt one day? It is very likely the business relationships would suffer.

The individual was already planning to transition when she had the interview. She withheld vital information until she was sure she had the job and then sprung it on them. Then, when they reacted negatively, she sued. This is wrong.

I actually agree with you on the court ruling, but disagree with everything else in your post ;)

The ruling was, at best, shaky because it pretty much ignores everything that has been ruled on the subject in the last few decades, I expect it to be over turned. The judge himself went out of his way numerous times to make sure it was known that trans discrimination at the LOC is legal, because there are no laws or "company policies" establishing those protections.

This is ample evidence of why trans discrimination policies & legislation, SPECIFICALLY stating protection of gender expression and gender identity, are so needed. It also goes to show how, in the legal world, trans people are extra-burdened in ways that other lgb's just aren't. HRC has abandoned us more than once, in case we forget- on getting this accomplished on a federal level. What is to say history won't again repeat itself? :x

In June of 2005- yes I know its a few years back but bare with me here, HRC openly and aggressively supported a bill that would have protected gay, lesbian and bisexual federal employees, only HRC in thinking it would help get the legislation through without incident, made intentionally sure that the bill only dealt with "sexual orientation" - gender identity and gender expression were no where in the document.

That doesn't change that the LOC's actions were wrong, and it would very easy to show just how wrong they are- even if they were legal in doing it (what's legal and what's ethical are two vastly different things sometimes!).

This was not just some janitorial position, this was a position within the LOC that would have been meeting directly with congressmen and other important civilian policymakers to ensure they knew what they needed to know on volatile terrorist issues. Given that, this was a position in the federal government that was directly related to the safety and welfare of all of our citizens, their friends, family and property... so what did the LOC do, hire the best qualified applicant they got? Hardly. If for no other reason, the LOC decided that it would be better to put the lives of Americans in jeopardy (by going with applicant #2) strictly because they didn't want to see a nonpassing ex-military MtF roaming the halls of congress in a skirt suit.

This isn't some manager at a hotel interacting with customers, this isn't a teacher in elementary school- if our policymakers can't handle being briefed by a nonpassing late transitioner, they have no business being in office.

Anyone who says it can't be done is full of it, the Brits aren't that different from us in how their society interacts with nonpassing late transitioners. If you see some pre-everything 50 year old MtF in a grocery store in England, they're going to get the exact same types of stares and laughs that they would here. Yet they know better than to challenge the safety of their citizens when the best person for the job is trans.... as far as I've ever read, no one raised an eye (questioning if the applicant/employee would pass, or what effect it would be if she didn't) when it came to Aryeh Nusbacher (who you all have seen countless times on the history channel), who is one of the leading military historians at the Sandhurst Royal Military Academy (although her transition did attract a pile of media attention over there- you know how those Brit papers can be, they almost make the Times look credible).

[Shining Star]

Should also point out, as anyone who has been employed in the private, and perhaps even the government can tell you, if an employer wants to get shot of you, they WILL find a reason. This is why Human Resource departments are headed by persons with degrees on the matter and companies have access to attorneys. Everything will be done legally, but make no mistake at the end of it you will be gone.

Now, what the courts think about your dissmissal is another matter. But, you better be correct when you go down that route, because in most cases firms will bring in an army of attorneys and documents (many of which you may have even signed), to prove their case.

So, in one sense it may have been better for this person to get things out in the open and go from there. Most likely either way things were going to end up in court anyway, so at least she can start work on day one (assuming the government does not appeal), with one less thing to worry about.

[SarahG]

Yes, showing up at a final interview as a man, and then going on to tell that one was going to show up at work as a trans-woman may not been seen by some as a wise move. But given points laid out as above, what choice did the girl have?

She had a lot of choices in how this played out.

It used to be (I forget where you are geography-wise, if you know this skip past it) that in the United States, to transition using medical doctors, you had to play a gatekeeper jump-through-hoops game.

The way this worked decades back is they'd pretty much say, ok- you're trans, we get that- but we want you to prove whether you can take being trans before we treat you, so go fulltime without doing anything (no hrt, no surgeries, none of that) and after a couple years, if we think you're emotionally ok, passable, and brave enough to make it that far- we'll start you on hrt. This was the original concept behind RLE, it wasn't a test to see if you could "live life as a girl"- because you wouldn't be living life as a girl. You'd be living "life as a nonpassing tranny"- and if you could survive two years of that without it fucking you up mentally, then that convinced the institution that you had the balls to continue -> it was solely to force you to prove your desperation in your claims of "needing to be treated."

THANKFULLY we don't do it that way anymore!

Now you can transition pretty much anyway you want and get access to treatments. Sure some random doctors here and there are hold outs grasping at the past in trying to deny trans patients access to medical care, but it really isn't hard to get HRT from a GP, and the SOC has even added provisions where you can skip RLE by going DIY for 3 (or more) months first. Even then, most doctors are willing to use their brains and ignore the SOC depending on how they view the patient's case. I would advice against the doctors that aren't capable of thinking, who just repeat whatever the current version of the SOC says.

It would be impossible for me to list how many girls I've known, of all different situations in terms of passing, age, field of employment- who transitioned in this post-gender-clinic world where they can do things at their pace, as they feel they're ready for it. It is not hard at all to go on hrt, start electro, maybe get critical passing-related surgeries out of the way before even going fulltime. For someone who is young, if they go on hrt and if their situation merits, gets some slight touch up work- they could end up going fulltime in a way in which they never have to deal with the ramifications of not passing. A lot of that boils down to luck, there are girls who if they started at 16 would never pass without full blown FFS, for some girls they may pass after just being on hrt for almost a year, for some it might take hrt & a nose job- there are endless situations along these lines.

In either case, I don't care if you're a 16, 18, 25, 45, or 65 year old transitioner... passable or not- if you just on a Friday go "well, i am trans and am going to transition... I haven't started anything yet but you'll see me in a skirt on Monday"- it will typically be VERY hard for your family, friends, employers to take you seriously. It creates the false illusion of it being some "weekend change of your clothes" on impulse and both of those (it being impulse or "just a change of clothes") are the absolute LAST things you want to impress on people.

The application process is also when it is easiest for an employer to let you go- they have nothing really invested in you, there's no training, responsibility.... they aren't committed, they don't know what your work will be like (even if you have a resume 50 pages long), what your performance will be, what your attitudes are. All they have is your resume, and how you present yourself.

Given that, you tell me which is worse for an applicant- someone who comes in as a tgirl whose been on hrt for a few years, maybe doesn't pass but its obvious this isn't just "the way they decided to get dressed that morning," has had their name changed, maybe electro is done-

Or the applicant who comes in as a guy, showing no signs of being trans and then, when you've practically hired them, stops you to go "oh by the way, you don't know this at all but I am trans -just haven't transitioned and will be coming in on my first day in a skirt." This not only looks like an impulsive transition, but its telling your employer that you might not trust them, refused to immediately come to them with important information.

That last point, is the absolute most important part of the LOC's decision here. This isn't a janitorial position, this is someone who is briefing congress on important terrorism information, and has the security clearances to boot. That job absolutely cannot hold back "out of fear of how people will react" and the interviewers are now left scratching their head thinking "what other surprises will there be, and what else will they wait months to tell me about?"

I am betting anyone, trans or not- who makes their job interviewers thinking "what other surprises will there be, and what else will they wait months to tell me about?" ESPECIALLY in department of defense work involving clearance, is going to not get hired.



Do y'all see why I think this is bad judgment on both parties sides now?

[Shining Star]

In the United States, employment law regarding hiring falls under "offer and acceptance".

If one has been through several interviews and things are winding down to the point an offer of employment has been made, or court will reasonably determine such, and you accept, it is not the same thing as the normal application process.

Once an oral agreement is made, oral contract if you will, be it for employment, or what have you, breech of that contract can bring legal action. The damaged person is entitled to legal action to make them "whole", which can range from financial compensation and or forcing the other party to live up to their part of the agreement. Which in this case is what the court told the LOC.

Basically the court is saying the trans person's conditon is covered by anti-discrimination statues, thus the LOC had no legal basis to withdraw their offer. The LOC's case basically stated your postion, that the person sprung such a huge surprise upon them that it warranted their breeching of contract.

As for trannies having to come into contact with the public as terms of their employment, that dog does not hunt.

There are pre, non-op and post op trannies, passing with various levels of sucess, holding employment ranging from nurses, to airline hostesses, to attorneys, to beauty salon workers and so forth. To admit that a transgendered person makes other co-workers and or the public "uneasy" is a vaild reason for not hiring them flys in the face of laws promoting diversity in the work place. Remeber it was not that long ago that the same things were said to keep women, blacks, gays, and any other non-white or at least male person out of certian professions and jobs. Indeed even persons who are overweight are fighting back against such attitudes.

[SarahG]

Basically the court is saying the trans person's conditon is covered by anti-discrimination statues, thus the LOC had no legal basis to withdraw their offer. The LOC's case basically stated your postion, that the person sprung such a huge surprise upon them that it warranted their breeching of contract.

But that's just it, it isn't protected by anti-discrimination statutes or case law and that's why I am predicting this will be overturned if challenged.

The courts have been consistent, for many years, that people who are trans are not protected under sex discrimination law.

Therefore an employer really can, at any time, tell a trans employee or applicant where the door is just for being trans- they don't need any other reason.

Also, don't confuse the LOC's position with my position, basically I am saying both parties were showing bad judgment here (needlessly)- and that's separate from the legal aspect of the case.



To admit that a transgendered person makes other co-workers and or the public "uneasy" is a vaild reason for not hiring them flys in the face of laws promoting diversity in the work place.

Agreed, but we're not talking about diversity in the workplace. To use the figure of speech, you're preaching to the choir here....but that doesn't change my opinion that the girl handled the situation poorly.

Her handling of the situation was at best far from ideal, but that doesn't mean that companies get a blank check to do whatever they want in response. No matter how poorly this girl handled the interview, the LOC was out of line in firing her for the reason given, but IMHO- the LOC was only ethically wrong, they were legally ok.



Remeber it was not that long ago that the same things were said to keep women, blacks, gays, and any other non-white or at least male person out of certian professions and jobs. Indeed even persons who are overweight are fighting back against such attitudes.

Do you know why those cases have been so successful when trans cases have not?

Because they have discrimination law to cling to- we usually don't.

If you want to avoid the mistakes of history fine, get the legislation through so that "gender expression" and "gender identity" are protected- anything short of that isn't going to be enough. But that won't happen, not if the leading lgbt activist group in congress has shown- multiple times, that they don't care about trans rights and would leave us behind any chance they get.

As to what happens when trans inclusion doesn't happen along side orientation reform- its simple, when we get left behind by lgb's- we never get inclusion. We're too small and weak of a group to get the reform we need independently, as far as I know there has never- in the history of the united states, been a time when a bill has been proposed & passed on a state or federal SOLELY to protect people on the basis of "gender expression" and "gender identity"

its only ever succeeded when it is done ALONG SIDE "orientation"

[tgirlzoe]

There are pre, non-op and post op trannies, passing with various levels of sucess, holding employment ranging from nurses, to airline hostesses, to attorneys, to beauty salon workers and so forth. To admit that a transgendered person makes other co-workers and or the public "uneasy" is a vaild reason for not hiring them flys in the face of laws promoting diversity in the work place. Remeber it was not that long ago that the same things were said to keep women, blacks, gays, and any other non-white or at least male person out of certian professions and jobs. Indeed even persons who are overweight are fighting back against such attitudes.

I have no problems with them doing so. My problem is involving the government in forcing people to continue employing people who are doing something that is likely against their own interests. At the risk of sounding trivial, if you dye your hair green and show up to work tomorrow and you are disciplined or fired, you don't go suing the company and trying to convince the government to force the company to treat you the same as before you dyed your hair green.

As far as hiring goes, it's usually obvious what race someone is or what sex they are when they apply or at least during the interview process. Discrimination exists in this stage all the time and there is nothing the government can do to stop it because it is silent. If say, they hire women or Black people but have a pattern of not promoting them or treating them more harshly than white men, then the individuals effected can choose to discuss the situation and complain, strike, or even quit en masse.

Though companies are made out of individuals and individuals may have their own prejudices, the company will always seek to act in such a way that it maximizes profit and reduces loss. Generally, this means only discriminating based on talents, not accidental traits. Whether race, sex, or "gender identity" is an irrelevant, accidental property or one that is important to the company's health should be determined freely, not by government force.

The individual in question in this case made a poor decision and is paying for it. In my own opinion, the hiring manager was quite open, honest, and kind as she could be. The courts stepped in and tried to force the LoC to hire her, three years after this fact (or at least, that's a possible outcome, in the very least, they will likely have to pay recompense to her). She could not have expected everything to go smoothly as though this was not a very important decision, not just for her, but for everyone else as well, including her newfound employer.

[SarahG]

I have no problems with them doing so. My problem is involving the government in forcing people to continue employing people who are doing something that is likely against their own interests. At the risk of sounding trivial, if you dye your hair green and show up to work tomorrow and you are disciplined or fired, you don't go suing the company and trying to convince the government to force the company to treat you the same as before you dyed your hair green.

I disagree entirely,

first of all, the LOC is a gov institution, the gov can make them do whatever the hell they want to, as long as its done legally.

Second, if discrimination policy isn't forced- it never gets better, never changes, and people will stay discriminated against forever. I can't recall a single time from our history where it happened without the law -somehow- forcing the issue, either by amendment, legislation, or court ruling.

The danger here, from trans reform's perspective, is that if you do it threw the courts you're playing legal roulette. Everyone goes to the courts hoping that the courts will agree with their reform movements... but sometimes it doesn't work that way.

Everyone goes in hoping and expecting a Brown v BOE ruling, instead they may get a Dred Scott ruling... and that is precisely what the risk is every time trans issues are fought for strictly by use of the courts.

We are particularly at risk at having our reform movement's version of a Dred Scott ruling now that the Bush admin has had 8 years to stack the justice department against LGBT rights, and 2 supreme court appointments on top of that. This isn't like playing Russian Roulette with a single round, this is like using the courts to play Roulette with 4 rounds in the 6 shooter.

We've been lucky in that, until recently, we had a liberal supreme court, and a over-all liberal court system even on most state levels, but this isn't 1999 anymore and a lot has changed, for the worse, since.

[Shining Star]

One has to take this whole "orientation" thing into context, where trannies are concerned.

Not too long ago, advice given to all transgender persons was simple: follow the Benjamin guide lines, have the operation (in the USA or elsewhere), then change over to a "woman" and make up an entire new identity for yourself as that woman. In short you were supposed to live post op as " woman" and therefore totally forget and never acknowledge your past as a male.

Problem with the above approach is that things accumulate around your name. It is very hard at 30 much less 40, or even 50 years of age to leave all one previous accomplishments behind and start again. Can you imagine anyone holding say a Masters degree, having to go back to college and start all over again from square one?

Most if not all recent benefits for gays and transgender persons have mostly come from the courts, not via state or federal government. Indeed high and powerful gay persons, such as Barney Frank consider trannies for the most part freaks and haven't done a darn thing to promote issues relating to them. Long as they and theirs (gay males and lesbians), get theirs, can marry,have children, and live happily ever after as "Mr and Mr. Cleaver", all is right in their world.

Again, what was the girl supposed to do? Delay her transitioning until when? The federal government passes laws to keep the LOC and other employers from firing her just for being a trannie? Again, it was going to come out sooner or later and erring on the side of believing honesty is the best policy, the girl got it over with. Again in all honesty the girl probably wasn't thinking nor giving other trannies a sustained thought, but her own livelihood and economic security.

There are quite allot of trannies out there, including the ones often derided as "men in dresses" who have made substantial personal investments in education and career building. When gays and lesbians are gaining more and more rights, and by all accounts main stream acceptance, why should the trannies be pushed under a bus? These trannies have no interest in the "scene' nor becoming sex workers, they simply want what everyone else wants, the right to apply and hold employment based upon their own merits.

Yes, court actions do not always go the way people plan. However your same arguments are some of the ones other minority groups in the past have used against involving the courts in their struggle for equality. Blacks, women, etc all had divisions who said "no, we mustn't to that, "they" will get angry, better to work within the system and sooner or later "they" will come around and we will get our rights'. Well sometimes you get sick and tired of being sick and tired, and things have to change.

The United States was unique in it's founding that it was created so ordinary persons had free and open access to the judicial system to petition redress against wrongs. Yes, sometimes horrible decisions came down, that either have stayed with us, or ultimately were reversed, but on the whole things have worked out very well. Not to everyone's liking, but then again what ever is?

IIRC, this particular trannie is one of those text book cases that believes strongly in her gender discomfort, and is seeking to quickly remedy the matter. In light of that, to force the girl to go to work as a "man" daily, even after obviously beginning transitioning is cruel. To force her to wait until she is protected by labour laws that state she cannot be fired without due case is not a good solution either. As many cases document, trannies that have worked places for ages, have been chucked out when they began transitioning. Sometimes the courts get them back in, sometimes not. So again I say, there really isn't a one size fits all solution for every trannie out there.

[SarahG]

Again, what was the girl supposed to do? Delay her transitioning until when?


I never said she had to delay her transition because she was interviewing for a government job. Had she been up front from the start, applied as a girl- and not waited until months after the interview process started, then it wouldn't have been this big "oh boss, about monday" discussion.

She herself said that she thought the confusion would be a problem, hence why she was starting fulltime so early... but if that was the case, it didn't have to go for 3 months to tell them that, not in a job where the position absolutely requires prompt full disclosure at all times.

Timing is a matter of everything, and either it came too early, or too late depending on which way you look at it.

Sure, in a perfect world there wouldn't be trans discrimination, but in a perfect world there wouldn't be problems with passing, problems with societal acceptance, or problems with getting trans medical costs paid for. This is a far from perfect world, and while working for change people need to keep in the backs of their mind that its not doing any favors to themselves, or anyone else- if they ignore that reality along the way. She obviously put a lot of thought into when she went FT, I just don't agree with the way she decided to time it & explain it.

This is why so many support sites, when giving advice, go to great lengths to make sure girls starting out know to get their papers and everything else in order before going for that dream job position. I really don't see how this case's background story can be even remotely construed to be the model "way to come out at work." It would be, to say the least, unsound advice to tell someone starting out that they should "tell their boss on a friday that they'll be going fulltime on monday" if it is totally unforeseen. Just in the way people are regularly telling girls starting out not to come out by surprising their friends in girlmode- you have to be concerned about the manner of which and timing in how stuff like that is done. It would be wrong for that to go unsaid, especially if girls starting out view this story and think "hey, maybe I should come out when I interview next time in the exact same way!"

For all we know if she'd been up front and consistent from the start, the LOC wouldn't have freaked out and she'd have been hired. Her qualifications speak from themselves, but she hardly was doing herself any favors by making the LOC question how up front & honest she is.

There are lots of ways this wasn't an ideal situation, most especially in the way the LOC acted (I don't want to give the impression that they're off the hook here).



Yes, court actions do not always go the way people plan. However your same arguments are some of the ones other minority groups in the past


The black civil rights movement was totally different. #1 they had a mostly receptive, liberal court to deal with (you really think we could get an unanimous ruling with all 9 justices on board the way they did in the early 50s?!?!) , and #2 that was combined with having an executive branch that was willing to enforce Brown v BOE, #3- it was also combined with a lot of federal legislation when everything else was failing to be enough. These three points have been instrumental, since, in expanding their rights movements in the courts. Its not all of why that movement has, to a point, been successful- but nonetheless it is a very very critical part of the picture.

The federal government, then and since- was not appointing judges and justice department employees SOLELY based on their positions on that movement like they have been in the last 8 years with LGBT issues (yes, the Bush admin DID illegally use people's opinions on LGBT issues to determine hiring, firing and promotional practices- the DOJ even admits that publicly themselves).

Without the political and legal landscapes suddenly & dramatically changing (virtually impossible on the scale needed) we're not going to be seeing a repeat of the black civil rights movement here- not even close.

We can't even get decent support from the bigger LGBT groups like HRC, and anyone who has studied the history of the black civil rights movement will readily testify to how instrumental it was for them to have moderate support from the existing power structure (like those moderate jewish groups, the Unitarians, I could go on). No rights movement that I know of has ever succeeded without SOME kind of moderate support on board, and we simply do not have that (as much as I'd wish to say otherwise).

How do you think women got the right to vote? It wasn't by chopping up saloons with axes & hatchets.