When David, soon to be Diane, Schroer informed his future employer in 2005 that such items might be in his future wardrobe after his planned sex change, he did not expect his honesty to get him fired from a job he had not even started.
But the next day the former Army Special Forces commander was told that he would not be a “good fit” as a terrorism analyst at the United States Library of Congress, despite already being accepted for the position. Thus, the only conceivable reason for his removal was his openly transexual identity. Last week, a US District Court judge ruled that the Library of Congress had discriminated against Schroer on the basis of sex, a groundbreaking decision for transexuals, who have never been protected against sex discrimination under federal law.
Handpicked to head a classified national security operation and to take charge of briefing high level officials such as Vice President Dick Cheney, 25-year-old Schroer was undoubtedly qualified for the job. Before he revealed his scheduled sex change, evidence proved that the Library of Congress was unwaveringly enthusiastic about his application. Clearly, the experience and knowledge that qualified him for the job would not change along with his gender after the surgery, despite the defense’s argument that he (once he became a she) may have had difficulties maintaining relations with high level officials.
More importantly, the defense argued that Schroer was not protected under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination in the workplace on the basis of race, national origin, religion, or sex. The very fact that they could make this argument reveals a fundamental flaw in American legislation. Transexuals have never been recognized on the federal level. They were explicitly excluded from both the Federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, despite the fact that transexuality is recognized as a medical condition by the name of gender dysphoria. By doing so, the federal government is setting an unacceptable example by openly allowing prejudice and discrimination against a group of people based on uncontrollable differences. This is a direct violation of the principles upon which the nation was founded, and the problem is not limited to the federal government. Eight states have disability laws that also specifically exclude transexuals, and 38 states do not have laws banning workplace discrimination based on gender identity. Both Congress and state legislatures must use this recent court ruling as a springboard for laws that will rectify the blatant discrimination against transexuals that exists in every level of government.
Other legislative action is also important to afford transexuals the protection they deserve. Currently, although schools rarely provide a welcoming environment for transexuals, and bullying is rampant, only three states have laws protecting transexual students in public schools. The absence of such protections has tragic results, such as a 15-year-old Californian boy killed by a classmate for his transexuality last February. Schools must stop omitting transexuality from sex education programs, for doing so deliberately leaves a gap in students’ education, fostering ignorance and suspicion. Parents should also reinforce this teaching at home rather than seeing it as a threat to their children’s innocence and safety, as they are really doing their children a disservice by shielding them from the truth and promoting prejudice and hatred.
The ruling in Schoer’s favor is only a first step in a long battle against the discrimination of transexuals, who have enjoyed none of the great legal strides homosexuals have made in recent years. The government must take steps to correct its serious omission, setting the example for the rest of society by creating laws to protect transexuals. They must also take measures to sow the seeds of acceptance in students from an early age through including discussion of transexuality in sex education. Discrimination is not caused by differences, but by the unwillingness of others to accept differences.