Transgendered Discrimination
 

I just ran across this article.

First, it will be interesting how the newly conservative Supreme Court will treat this interpretation of the law. Recently, they seem to swing between literal and loose interpretation of the Constitution depending on which supports their philosophical beliefs.

I have to admit, this also brought up some of my prejudices. I could not think of a less likely candidate for this than a Special Forces commander assigned to covert ops.

It does make one think though. Assuming that his rank of Colonel was earned, what would the military have done if he had mentioned this 25 years ago? Would they have refused his service? Would this have been good for the country, since he was effective enough to reach the position that he did.

This raises some interesting questions.

Does transgendered discrimination count as sex discrimination?
Does Congress's intent in creating the law count, or is the court free to interpret the law as written?
Can a socially conservative Supreme Court make an unbiased ruling in this case?
Does Col. Schroer's experience support or negate the concept behind "Don't ask, Don't tell"?
Are UG and Merc overcompensating, and what would they look like in dresses.:eek3:

BTW, I was trying to figure out if this thread belonged in Home Base, Current Events, or Politics.

Yes, yes, yes. Unquestionably, absolutely, 100%.

This is unquestionably discrimination. But unfortunately very few places specifically outlaw gender discrimination as applied to transgendered. California is one of those.

Intent has some sway in the determination of a laws application, but a court is going to interpret this in their own way. But in fairness, this kind of thing has been frowned upon (the bias, not the transgenderism) for some time.

Not likely although I'd love to think that they could.

Don't ask was designed to apply only to overt sexual choices, not mental states of being. So I doubt it applies here.

UG and Merc should post pictures for us to decide.

I do hope that the law comes down on the side of the person and not the Library of Congress. Transsexuals are people too and have more than enough to fear without worrying about employment bias, but they do.

I am in one of the few fields that will accept a transgendered person without much reservation. As long as the person in question is physically qualified to perform the work and can get from point A to Point B on time (usually), they're hired. What happens after dark at a remote truck stop is another matter entirely but I do think that the TS in question here would be able to handle herself well.

I'm on the side of the oppressed here, surprising only a few.

I would assume that believing that you are the wrong gender is as much a mental state and sexual choice as believing that you are gay.

We would need to create an NSFA (not safe for anyone) category.:p Hey, for all we know UG is David/Diane (Merc's wife looks like someone who would want a partner with all of the plumbing intact).

Gender is as much in the mind as it is in the body.

Nowadays, if you think you are, you are.

Therapists are only trying to weed out voyeurs and people who are likely to have post-op guilt and try to return to their original gender. Also, they help the TG to understand the ramifications of their choices and deal with the issues that arise.

There is no "test" to diagnose gender dysphoria.

Having worked in a university library, I would want an ex special forces colonel on my team, especially if they appeared to be a regular librarian type. It would do wonders for keeping order.

[Middle aged lady in conservative outfit] LISTEN UP YOU SNIVELING LITTLE MAGGOTS! WHEN I SAY SHUSH I MEAN TOTAL SHUSH AND I EXPECT SHUSH IMMMMMMMMEDIATELY!!!!!!!!!!!!! NOW DROP AND GIVE ME FIFTY! [/MALiCO]

Ok, this is the library of congress, but I seriously doubt they'd be any better than students.