Reason.com
New at Reason
Julian Sanchez journeys into the mixed-up, muddled-up, shook-up world of the Library of Congress to solve the case of Dave/Diane Schroer and the missing gender assumptions.
Most Popular Stories
- 5 Classic Teen Sex-and-Drug Freakouts: Rainbow Parties, Butt-Chugging, And So Much More (By Which We Mean Less) (5.27)
- Government Beneficiaries and Other Fairy Tales (5.26)
- Do Organic Consumers Shop Exclusively at the Jerk Store? (5.26)
- Sharon Presley on Libertarian Feminism (5.26)
- Here Are the 15 Senators Who Voted to Stop Armed FDA Agents From Conducting Warrantless Raids on America's Farmers (Not One of Them is a Democrat) (5.24)
Reason RUPE: Public Opinion Survey
- Reason-Rupe: Wisconsinites Favor Increasing Public Union Retirement Contributions to Address Budget Deficit (5.25)
- Reason-Rupe Poll Finds Support for Public Union Reforms (5.25)
- New Poll: Obama Leads Romney In Wisconsin, But Gary Johnson Could Impact the Race (5.24)
- Wisconsin Recall: Walker Leads Barrett 50-42 Among Likely Voters (5.24)
- Reason-Rupe Poll: Walker Leads Barrett 50-42, Obama Leads Romney 46-36 (5.24)
advertisements
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsSite comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment or disable your ability to comment for any reason at any time.
Bob Basil|7.25.05 @ 7:25PM|#
Odd thing to spring on one's future boss two weeks before s/he started. That said, the Library of Congress is going to have to pay for this one.
|7.25.05 @ 10:12PM|#
It is an odd thing to spring on someone, but it really depends on what stage of transition you're going through. Had Diane simply shown up in a dress (or whatever), it's possible she would have been turned away to begin with.
Not only that, though, identification and such makes things difficult, depending on the state. I have a friend who has had a great deal of trouble finding work despite passing perfectly as a female. At some point, you have to give them identification and she's still, legally, male. Hell, at the DMV, they gave her the third degree because they didn't believe she was male.
If it were me, I doubt I would have done it differently. If they want me as a male, but not as a female, then there's something wrong.
Warren|7.26.05 @ 1:34AM|#
Most clear cut case of sex discrimination ever. If he's a man he gets the job, but a woman with the exact same qualifications is not a good fit.
|7.26.05 @ 4:08AM|#
Why don't they just pay her less for the same work and have done with it?
|7.26.05 @ 5:09AM|#
I wonder if I can sue the base commander for not letting me in the female showers.
After all the only reason they don't let me in is because I am male.
Seems like a clear cut example of sexual discrimination. I'll have to talk to a lawyer about that one.
|7.26.05 @ 5:13AM|#
or maybe not being allowed in the female showers at a college campus is a more apt case to sue about.
|7.26.05 @ 7:45AM|#
Kwais,
Why do you assume that the showers are divided by sex on campus?
|7.26.05 @ 8:05AM|#
"Why do you assume that the showers are divided by sex on campus?"
Is it not the case? Is the shower scene from Starship Troopers common in colleges? If so I am going back to school. Maybe just summer school.
At the school that I went to the showers and restrooms were devided, much like they are at the gyms that I have been to.
If it is true that this is not acceptable under the law, then this he/she has a valid lawsuit.
|7.26.05 @ 9:19AM|#
Idle curiousity... if this would happen at a private company, would libertarians still be upset? Which is paramount, freedom of association or non-discrimination? Do people have a right to be bigots in their personal affairs? And if the answer is yes, at what point, as personal affairs turn into business affairs, are people no longer entitled to bigotry? Mind, I'm plumbing the libertarian viewpoint here, I don't really care what current law is.
|7.26.05 @ 9:52AM|#
While I thought the article was well-written and appreciated the legal tactics being used by the ACLU, I'm pretty sure that it was written solely as an excuse to use the last line.
|7.26.05 @ 10:02AM|#
Maybe he wasn't hired as a "women" because he's clearly fucked in the head. You can't change your gender - you can mutilate your genitalia all you want, but you can't change your gender. Pretending that you can is a pretty good sign that you are fuckin' nuts!
|7.26.05 @ 10:04AM|#
More to the point, Grummun, do people have the fundamental right to define which gender they are? If I say I'm a woman, do I have to actually begin the surgery, or wear a dress, in order to be accepted by society as a woman? Furthermore, if this freak Schroer gets his way, does gender even exist as something to differentiate between "men" and "women"?
|7.26.05 @ 10:25AM|#
In addition to this story, the military is still kicking out gifted Arabic translators because they happen to be gay. We'll NEVER win this here War on Terrorism if it always takes a back seat to the War on People Whose Sexual Preferences We Think Are Icky.
|7.26.05 @ 11:18AM|#
I don't really care about the gender identity issue at hand, although it does seem to influence the side for which individual commenters feel sympathy. My question is, is a person entitled to harbor a deep and abiding loathing for (insert demographic group here), and to dispose of their private property in a fashion that reflects that opinion? And if so, as that person engages, or uses their private property to engage, in commerce, at what point, if ever, does that entitlement cease?
|7.26.05 @ 11:20AM|#
"if this would happen at a private company, would libertarians still be upset?"
Wrong question. It's not what they would feel, I for one would be upset. It's what they would do. There are as many answers to that as there are libertarians, but one answer you won't (or shouldn't) find is to force the business to hire someone they don't want for whatever reason.
It leads to a govermment powerful enough to give you what you want, but also powerful enough to take it away. Then everybody's screwed, not just the poor guy (gal?).
|7.26.05 @ 11:56AM|#
This is not even geneder discrimation, it is an issue of apperance. A male wearing a dress is still a male. Unless there is some way wearing a dress makes him unable to preform his job (it might be unsafe for a welder to wear a dress) it should not factor in to an employment decision. I would go so far as to say it should not matter even to a privite employer - it is closer there because it is a frist admendment expression vs first admendment assocation issue, but I would probably come down on the side of the indivual rather then the corportation since I feel indivuals have a stronger claim to all fundimental rights.
|7.26.05 @ 12:11PM|#
There is a difference between not hiring a woman, and not hiring a person who's had a sex change operation. There is also a difference between hiring someone who's had a sex change operation, and someone who is about to have, or has recently had a sex change operation.
You may now go back to your simplistic pedantry.
|7.26.05 @ 12:19PM|#
"if this would happen at a private company, would libertarians still be upset?"
Yes. I wouldn't force them to ghire the person, but I would be upset.
|7.26.05 @ 12:28PM|#
ABC: you can mutilate your genitalia all you want, but you can't change your gender. Pretending that you can is a pretty good sign that you are fuckin' nuts!
Well, the current sociological terminology is that sex is biological, while gender is socially and psychologically constructed. So you're (only technically) incorrect.
But the sentiment still holds - it's not an issue of sex discrimination. Dave Schroer is not a woman, he is a man pretending to be a woman, and the courts deciding that "gender stereotypes" qualify as "sex discrimination" is foolish on the face of it. Anti-discrimination statutes are supposed to protect individuals from being discriminated against in the basis of immutable biological factors (yes, I know religon's in there, but that's the oddball).
I agree with ABC and jf on this one - I think it's perfectly acceptable for an employer, government of otherwise, to decide "this employee appears to have some psychological denial-of-reality issues we do not want to deal with".
As an aside to vrimj: would you expect an employer to accept a furry employee who insisted on coming to work dressed as a koala space princess?
Amy Phillips|7.26.05 @ 12:42PM|#
Daniel,
That depends: is the employer allowing some employees to dress like koala space princesses and not others? If so, that strikes me as unfair (although there's nothing necessarily illegal about a private employer behaving unfairly). If an employer wanted to ban dresses or high heels or lipstick for all employees, I might wonder why, but they would be within their rights, just as they're within their rights to ban blue jeans or running shoes or cowboy hats if they so choose. It's when the government starts making distinctions about which groups of people are allowed to wear which outfits based on their gender that I get worried. It seems to me that it ought to be illegal for the government to fire a female employee for wearing a pantsuit to work. Conversely, it would seem that there is little grounds for them to fire a male employee for wearing a skirt suit.
I do agree, by the way, that it would probably be worthwhile for the government to have Ms. Schroer undergo a psych evaluation before granting a high level security clearance. I don't think being transgendered automatically means one is crazy, but it seems entirely plausible that the sex-change process and dealing with the reactions to it could bring up some psychological stress issues that a person would need to learn to deal with in order to be a good security risk.
|7.26.05 @ 2:05PM|#
It would appear that for all the would-be gay-rights champions 'round here, there is much work to do regarding the acknowledgement of, and sensitivity to, transgendered individuals.
Furthermore, if this freak Schroer gets his way, does gender even exist as something to differentiate between "men" and "women"?
The binary gender system leaves many discontents, and could stand some shaking up.
|7.26.05 @ 2:20PM|#
"We'll NEVER win this here War on Terrorism if it always takes a back seat to the War on People Whose Sexual Preferences We Think Are Icky."
But Jennifer, don't you know that if gays are treated as equals by American society then the terrorists will just hate us that much more? Obviously the gay-bashers are just looking out for everyone's safety!
|7.26.05 @ 3:51PM|#
quotha Amy: "It seems to me that it ought to be illegal for the government to fire a female employee for wearing a pantsuit to work. "
Herein lies the real debate: how far does "equal treatment under the law" extend.
Let's leave the government out of it for a second. I firmly believe that any anti-discrimination legislation is a violation of freedom of association. Period. I should be allowed to not rent housing to or employ blacks, Jews, unmarried single mothers, homosexuals or or old white Gentile heterosexual men if I want. Or not.
In the case of a private employer, it is that employer and his/her own hard-earned cash on the line, and no governmental agency should have the power to tell them who they can and cannot hire, for any reason whatsoever.
In this particular case, however, we have a government organization, which is tenuously bound by the government's legal duty to treat all citizens equally under the law. I'll concede that the courts have previously ruled that this pseudo-firing is probably a violation of the relevant laws without conceding that the ruling, or the law, is good ('cause, you know, Kelo.)
If you'll grant me the license to blatantly ignore the actual law for a moment - does/should "equal treatment under the law" extend to this kind of extreme situation? It's a reductio ad absurbam, I'll admit, but take the case of the pygmy wizard bears from Upper Nubilia. Should it be unlawful for an employee to be fired for insisting on showing up to work like that, if they claim it is an inescapable aspect of their sexual orientation? At what point can an employer simply fire someone for inappropriate attire?
|7.26.05 @ 6:16PM|#
I'm kind of with ABC on this one. Hey, I'm all about self-ownership - if you really believe you were born in the wrong body, or whatever, and it makes you happy to have an operation, go for it. But please don't ask the rest of us to go along with your ridiculous charade and pretend that you are actually a woman (or man) now. Why this (to me) self-evident dementia is treated as just another lifestyle choice and not evidence of being messed up in the head is beyond me. I mean, if I came into a job interview and said "I am a blue whale trapped in a man's body! WeeeOOOOoooOOOooo!" people would know I was nuts, so what's the difference between that and saying I'm a woman trapped in a man's body? However, this being the government does make a difference, as Mr. Ream says, I'd say that the government has an obligation to treat its citizens equally which a private employer does not.
|7.26.05 @ 10:57PM|#
Words fail me.
I'll choose to believe and hope that the comments posted are only representative of the most closed-minded and uninformed readers of H&R.
|7.27.05 @ 10:11AM|#
Right, Mr. Crane - so people with certain kinds of patently false delusions (there exists an imaginary sky-god-man who cares very deeply about what you do with your genitals), they can be dismissed, but people with other kinds of patently false delusions (denial of basic biology) must have our unquestioning respect?
I gotta go with JD on this one. And I love the blue whale analogy.
|7.27.05 @ 10:15AM|#
What about people who use hair dye? Sounds like they're pretty uncomfortable with "who they really are," too. "A blonde trapped in a brunette's body." Same thing, different scale.
|7.27.05 @ 11:01AM|#
Daniel Ream,
How is an alteration of one's form a denial of basic biology? Further, how does it relate in any way to religious belief?