Library of Congress Sued for Sex Discrimination

A terrorism expert claims that a recent job offer was rescinded because of a planned gender transition:

The Right Person for the Job (WaPo)

The job candidate interviewing to be a terrorism research analyst at the Library of Congress seemed to have exceptional qualifications: a 25-year Army veteran and former Special Forces commander who spent a career hunting terrorists and often personally briefed the vice president, defense secretary or Joint Chiefs of Staff on sensitive operations.

The interviews and salary talks went well for David Schroer. A job offer followed, and he accepted. Then the new employee brought up one last item: Once work began, the name would be Diane, not David.

The job offer, Schroer said, was rescinded the next day.

Schroer, 48, recently began the medical transition to become a woman. The former Army Ranger believed that the library would be a welcoming place to make a gender transition: “It’s the United States government. It’s the Congress. It’s an eclectic, academic environment with a group of diverse people that all work together to get the job done.”

Schroer is to file a lawsuit today accusing the Library of Congress of sex discrimination and asking that the job offer be reinstated, said Arthur B. Spitzer, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of the National Capital Area.

“This is an important case, factually, because here’s a person who spent her entire career defending freedom for the entire country and is now being told she is unfit for a job with the government,” said Spitzer, who represents Schroer.

Spitzer said the case could face some obstacles. “Legal protection for transgender people is not at all clear. . . . Courts have not been as receptive as they need to be for providing discrimination protection for these people,” he said.

A spokeswoman for the library, Helen Dalrymple, declined to comment on any details of Schroer’s complaint because the case is a personnel matter.

Accordingly, the article provides very little information from the employer’s perspective. But I think it’s important to think through some possible reasons — besides outright discrimination — for the rescindment. Here are three:

  • Misrepresentation: LOC could be less concerned that Schroer intended to undergo a gender change than that Schroer waited until the last minute to disclose the intention. It could have felt thrown off by the sudden disclosure, thereby raising questions about other parts of the candidacy. Did this person conceal any other (perhaps more relevant) information? Did this person exaggerate certain qualifications? In general, can we trust this person to be upfront about work-related issues, especially if a challenging situation arises? Or, upon hiring, will we need to monitor this person closely, given what happened during the job-offer process? Basically, LOC may have disliked the way that Schroer handled the situation, not so much the situation itself.
  • Administrative Costs: Since the gender transition would presumably take place after Schroer’s first day of work, LOC would need to make changes along the way. On a very minor level, it would need to replace the name on all the employment forms. More significantly, healthcare coverage may become altered. Would the medical transition, for instance, require certain kinds of insurance that would be difficult to provide? LOC may figure that it would be best simply to rescind the job offer rather than go through the hiring, begin training, and become invested in the process — only to learn down the line that it cannot give adequate accommodations to its new employee. Beyond Schroer, LOC may wonder about its other staffers. Would they need sensitivity training? Could LOC afford it?
  • Uncertainty: Will Schroer need time off for the medical transition? If so, when will the leave take place? Will Schroer require extensive counseling that might detract from work? Perhaps these issues are scheduled to occur at a particularly busy time, when LOC needs its employees to put in reliably long hours. Schroer may struggle to make such a commitment, so another candidate may be better-suited for the position.

I should note that I lack the legal expertise to assess the constitutionality of the case. I have limited knowledge of job discrimination. Indeed, the article provides few nitty-gritty details, and as we all know, that’s where the devil is. My analysis may differ from what actually took place between Schroer and LOC. But, again, the point is simply to think through the various issues that employers consider when making hiring decisions, since they often get lost when the situation has major political implications.

FILED UNDER: Gender Issues, Law and the Courts
Robert Garcia Tagorda
About Robert Garcia Tagorda
Robert blogged prolifically at OTB from November 2004 to August 2005, when career demands took him in a different direction. He graduated summa cum laude from Claremont McKenna College with a Bachelor of Arts in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics and earned his Master in Public Policy from Harvard's Kennedy School of Government.

Comments

  1. How about insanity? I think self-mutilation falls under that category if only the APA had the nads to recategorize it.

  2. Autumn Sandeen says:

    The difficulty with coming up with alternate reasons for the job offer being withdrawn is that the withdrawal isn’t done in a news/real world vacuum; it still functionally appears to be discrimination. Diane Schroer was deemed qualified, and was offered the job in question. If Diane Schroer’s end-of-interview revelation had been one indicating a previously undisclosed race, creed, veteran status, gender, or a disability status that didn’t affect job performance, then the library would appear to be clearly guilty of discriminating against someone in a protected class–whether or not that discrimination was intentional or not.

    A spokesperson for the library indicated that the organization wouldn’t comment on this story because it’s a personnel matter. It would seem then that the only way to get a clear answer to their reasons for the job withdrawal that may or may not explain apparent discrimination against a transsexual would be in a federal court. To do less than take this to court would indicate that being a transsexual is synonymous with being a sub-human person.

    To clarify my statement that the withdrawal wasn’t done in a news/real world vacuum, some links to a relevant appeals court decision, and recent headlines are provided below:

    Smith v City of Salem Ohio 6th Cir. 6-01-04

    Discrimination, Yes, But What Kind?

    Job bias case settled

    Eugene City Beat: Transgender law proposal to get airing

    Bill Banning Discrimination Against (Transgender People) Struck Down By Owens

    The US immigration agency doesn’t recognize marriages involving transgender people

    Nothing real about it

    Too many transgender persons are killed in the United States for being transgendered

    Prosecutor says transgender teen’s killers felt deceived

    Police Ask For Public’s Help To Find Alleged Killer

  3. Kathy O'Brien says:

    How about insanity? Rusty Shackleford

    She was clearly nuts risky her life for the last 25 years to protect this jerks freedom.

    You can run a 120 man anti-terror squad, brief Cheney & the Joint Chiefs numerous times, jump out of an airplane for ingrate cowards 450 times – but you can’t shelve books?

  4. anon says:

    So, Kathy, “Freedom” doesn’t mean you get to hire who you want?

    I always thought freedom meant doing things that aren’t popular or that upset other people. Since there are other jobs out there, not hiring this person doesn’t preclude him from getting another job. There’s also freedom of assiciation – I certainly wouldn’t want to work with someone who is planning/having/had a sex change. Some people may not like me for that, but I get “freedom of choice”, which for liberals doesn’t go past a single issue.

  5. Kathy O'Brien says:

    Well – yes – I’m saying you don’t get to discriminate in hiring when you use my tax money.
    Especially not when your the federal govrnment & this person is a veteran who has done nothing illegal.

    But to take this outside that realm – you’re saying that if someone doesn’t want to hire me because I’m Catholic – that should be legal? My being Catholic was a choice.

    The Catholic Church doesn’t support these folks being clergy or marrying – but they we don’t support discrimination in hiring against them. Should the government institute this – are they being anti-religous?

  6. Kathy O'Brien says:

    “There’s also freedom of assiciation – I certainly wouldn’t want to work with someone who is planning/having/had a sex change.”

    You know – I’ll admit that my thoughts on this are colored my my own service and my desire to support someone who has served this country so well. But even given that – this statement is just silly.

    I’m suprised your first boss or your mother never told you this – but they call it work for a reason – if you’re spending time worrying about the private lives of other workers – you’re likely not doing your job. In the real world you will have to work for many bosses you don’t like & with many co-workers you wouldn’t choose for friends. Rest assured many of them feel the same way about you.

    So grow up – and ask yourself sometime why you choose to spend your time trying to put someone who has done more for this country than you will ever in 10 lifetimes – out of work.

  7. Barb says:

    Mark,
    My deepest thanks for handling a topic everyone wants to look at obliquely and dismiss. There is no way Dave could tell you he was Diane. You wouldn’t have understood because she didn’t understand. Describe to your best friend a widget and what it does? What’s a widget? Who knows? How does one describe to another person what they have no concept of?

    I can only tell you why, not the emotions of being born in the boy-girl mix master. You, me, your dad, your mom, everyone is born a girl at conception. When you were six weeks old your mom received the signal you had XY chromosomes and you were designed to be a boy. Estrogen was turned down, testosterone was turned up and your vagina, along with certain other male characteristics grew into what was recognizable as male.

    Diane, myself, and thousands of others received a glitch in the signals. Whether it was from mom smoking and drinking, chemicals in the environment, or just a hick up of Mother Nature, our brains didn’t receive the proper instructions to change into what our bodies were designated to be. In the past six years science has finally caught up with what happens because of the gender blender mixed signals. Females and males do have different brain structure. After the first scientific paper came out many in the medical community and the gay and lesbian community cried bad science. Three more independent labs did the research and came to the same conclusions the following years.

    Gays have the same brain structure as heterosexual males.
    Lesbians have the same brain structure as heterosexual females.
    Male to female transsexuals have the brain structure of genetic heterosexual females.
    Female to male transsexuals have the brain structure of genetic heterosexual males.

    Don’t ask me where the labs received the brains to slice and dice.

    Believe it or not, most gays and lesbians can’t stand us any more than the general population. They like the system the way it is. Transsexuals call into doubt guys are guys and girls are girls mentality of the whole human race. Why everyone thinks we are the misfits and freaks one sees on the television shows when all those other dysfunctional people aren’t representative of their own selves is a quark of human nature to want to believe the worst in everyone besides themselves.

    If you are a normal human you will go through several phases with your long time friend Diane, even if it’s from a distance.
    1: You will be fascinated by what she has told you.
    2: You will become aware of your own place in the male is male, female is female thing.
    3: You will start to feel uncomfortable discussing or seeing your long lost friend.
    4: You will slowly build a hate toward Diane for taking over your friend David’s place in life.
    5: You will feel revulsion at the idea of even talking or thinking about Diane because she killed Dave.

    Mark, trust me from a girl who has studied this life for a lot longer than I’m going to admit. Diane is the same person you always knew. She is still one of the finest people you will ever know in your life. She’s still the same person you knew as a best buddy in college. The heart and soul never changed. She was and always will be the same person.

    When you put on a different shirt, pants, jacket, suit does it make you a different person? The outside paint job on a car doesn’t change it from a Yugo to a Lamborghini. Diane changed the covering. She’s still that same person the doc held up and proclaimed to the world, “It’s a boy!” The doc had it all wrong as he was only looking at the paint job. Little did he know there was a Lamborghini under that facade.

    Diane will have to start her life all over because her “friends” can’t understand why she killed Dave and took his place. Those who never knew Dave will accept Diane as the person she always was.

    I pray you are one of the exceptions. I pray you keep close contact with Diane for she will teach you more about living than you ever thought possible. She knows all about life because she has had to fight for every single day since that day she realized there were girls and boys and she was a girl despite what everyone looking at.
    always,
    Barb

  8. caitlyn says:

    To address your three areas of interest:

    Misrepresentation: Diane’s condition is not a life threatening condition or even one that would require time away from her work beyond normal vacation and sick leave. As a condition unrelated to work, there was no reason to disclose it. That isn’t misrepresentation, it is personal privacy. Had this been an application for security clearance, then Diane would be expected to reveal many things that are not relevant to a hiring decision, but transsexualism is not a reason for denial of a clearance.

    Administrative costs: Name change? Come now, do you think any woman who takes her husband’s name would be penalized for adding administrative costs? Of course not. Federal health insurance does not cover transsexual surgery and so doesn’t add additional cost. More relevant, hiring decisions cannot be based on whether the hiring officer thinks the employee’s medical expenses will be higher than other candidates (and if this was a legitimate concern, then it would need to be applied across the board to other health conditions). As to sensitivity training – if employees have a bias, then of course the organization needs to educate people to overcome that bias, regardless of whether that is a bias based on gender, color, sexual orientation, country of origin, or other factors.

    Uncertainty: If the hiring officer had questions on this topic, there are many sources of information that could put her mind at ease. Diane is not the first transsexual in a congressional agency and there is enough experience in on-the-job transition to ensure that quality of work for Diane or for co-workers would not be affected. To let an individual’s bias and ignorance determine a decision is just wrong. The LOC is not a small business, it is a congressional agency of professional experts who are expected to deal with one another as professionals, regardless of personal attributes and characteristics of other staff.

    The biggest problem that people in Diane’s position must face is not the blatant expression of Rusty Shackleford. It is the fear by insecure people that is expressed in terms of ‘how will other people react?’ when what they really mean is ‘What will people think of me for hiring this person who is different than others?’ The LOC staff and management would adapt fine, as would congressmen, senators and their staffs. This is a world of adults and in that world the fact that a woman used to be a man is only a small blip in their lives – if fact, many have friends, relatives and colleagues who have either made this transition or are contemplating it already.

    The issue shouldn’t be Diane’s change of gender – it should be ensuring that the federal workplace doesn’t not discriminate and does not lose qualified applicants because some hiring officers and supervisors haven’t had the experience to overcome their uncertainty and insecurity.

  9. Andrew says:

    The issue is extremely clouded and alot of speculation is being tossed about. The one clear thing is that nothing is fully clear…yet. Press feeds off itself and quotes other press and statements that only come from the people desiring to speak—hence you get the Schroer viewpoint minus the government’s viewpoint. This is also an imposed formality. The CRS can’t speak. They are prohibited because it is an active case. Everyone will have to wait for more info on this case—need I say info that comes backed by subpoenas and under oath.

    One issue not yet raised is how David Schroer’s decisions might affect a security clearance. Does the job require one? Being homosexual doesn’t prohibit gaining or keeping a clearance, but any hint at emotional instability (indecisiveness) would be cause for review of a clearance or at least prevent a speedy transfer of any clearance Schroer had but that needs to be transferred. This means Schroer might be on the job for MONTHS until he was able to perform ALL his job functions. If he has to spend months on the payroll awaiting final determination for his clearance and an equally qualified candidate with a CURRENT clearance is also available it makes fiscal sense to go with what is more dependable. What an employer doesn’t want is to invest tens of thousands of dollars in a candidate who then must be let go 6 months down the road because he couldn’t get a clearance.

    Again–this is speculation. Maybe Schroer doesn’t need a clearance. We don’t even know if Schroer was still in the review stage or if an offer letter had been sent—press statements differ on this. We need official statements to come…

  10. NancyP says:

    Schroer will likely take about two years to reach the point where she will be cleared for surgery. Surgery is not done by reputable docs until the individual has lived, 24/7, as the new gender for a full year, and since this is a procedure not covered by insurance, the likelihood is that it would have to be done on vacation time (or whatever the accomodation is for other non-covered surgical procedures like breast augmentation or reduction, “tummy tucks”, etc), and she would have to accrue the necessary time. Not all transgender individuals actually get the surgery immediately, or ever, often due to the high cost, somewhere around 50K. Furthermore, the guidelines for gender reassignment surgery require that the candidate undergo psychiatric evaluation by two independent psychiatrists or Ph.D. clinical psychologists, and typically this is started early in the process, ie, it is likely that Schroer has already had the psychological vetting. My guess is that Schroer’s psychiatric status has been investigated at least as thoroughly as one is investigated for security clearances, and it would seem unlikely that she has a secret BIGGER than transgender status which was about to be voluntarily made very public indeed. Furthermore, I doubt that Schroer would be overly concerned or unhappy about yet another psychiatric evaluation (unless it was another big medical bill!).

    I have worked with transgendered folk in academia, and it just isn’t a big deal. Uncontrolled halitosis or body odor – now THAT’S a big deal, if you have to share an office.

  11. Andrew says:

    I think Nancy missed the point of my last post. It isn’t the concerns of Mr. Schroer that matter in reference to any need for a clearance or review of said clearance. It really makes no difference how Schroer “feels” about any security clearance issues. The process of review or granting is quite exhaustive. The choices Mr. Schroer has made and is making will cause the process to take longer. There really is no debate on this issue. It is a statement of fact (unless you have no experience with clearance requirements).

    However, the likelihood that Mr. Schroer will be unqualified for his job is increased (unless his clearance is already granted and all the info of his intentions to perform this surgery have been made know to his security officer—which is unlikely). Therefore, Mr. Schroer is not actually the best qualified for his job. He may not be qualified whatsoever, if his clearance is yanked or not renewed.

    Lastly, the psychiatric reviews of independent psychologists mandated for MDs to perform this surgery will not be accepted by the U.S. government. A clearance need not require a psychiatric review at all. But it will likely require a field agent to perform more interviews and hence take a great deal MORE TIME.

    I am not saying Mr. Schroer may be disqualified. That demands a review of his clearance (if this is even an issue at all). I am simply saying this may not be as black and white as many people would like to make it by simplifying the issue into a female supervisor who didn’t want to work with a male transvestite.

    When the case ultimately plays out, it may be as simple as a predjudiced person or it may be due to issues that we have not even seen addressed—because we have to get all our info from a notably biased source>>the plaintiff.

  12. Kathleen says:

    First, to Barb, thanks for the information. I assume the Mark you’ve addressed this to is the college roommate/columnist who told Dave’s story. I was there, too, with Dave back in college, only I felt his unease, but it being the mid-’70s, of course, couldn’t put my finger on what was out of whack.

    One thing I first must clarify is that as her friend, I would NEVER desert her, she’s that wonderful and I don’t see Mark doing that either.

    Further, to all of you naysayers as to Diane being up to the job: you are incorrect. As her most-impressive career demonstrates, she is actually over-qualified and this position at the Library of Congress would be a walk in the park for her. Diane is a brilliant and honourable person, almost to a fault. She would never compromise her professionalism on the job.
    Sincerely,
    Kathleen

  13. Andrew says:

    I would urge the last poster to review the posts in detail. At least as far as my posts are concerned the core issue is that all info is not known. Secondly, as to qualification: If Mr. Schroer needs a clearance (albeit this is just speculation on my part and may not be an issue at all) then he may not be overqualified. He may not be qualified whatsoever. This is a basic requirement and justifiable fear on the part of the party who has to hire employees. I would urge any person not to let personal relationships, past experiences and emotions to color the facts. Facts of which have not been truly revealed yet. If the core issue was predjudice then recounting of personal interactions with transexuals might be of import. However, having had beneficial relationships/interactions with transexuals or even friendships with the person in question has no bearing on whether or not Mr. Schroer will have a problem with his clearance.

    Frankly, my contributions are superfluous to the argument due to the fact that the fact whether he even needs a clearance hasn’t yet been established and may not for some time to come. Therefore, I apologize for my contributions. Albeit this line of argument establishes my core point that “we must wait on more facts before inserting personal bias.” Without the idea that the facts need to be known more fully, we are only left with emotional arguments of assumed predjudice. If such proves to be the case then the law will prevail.

    Special thanks to the original poster for your willingness to try to see all points of view before jumping to conclusions. Also thanks to those who are personal friends to Mr. Schroer. I am sure he appreciates your support of him. Although I do not agree with your reasoning (appeals to emotion/experience) I think it is important that you voice your experiences. If this case revolves around predjudice then the law will settle it. I look forward to hearing/reading the testimony.

    Since some in this post know Mr. Schroer so well, perhaps he would be willing to post the transcripts which he will be able to have access to for the general public to know the details of the case once it is settled. If this case is a matter of predjudice, I assume he would be glad to do so.

  14. Kathleen says:

    What is the deal with “clearance?” Perhaps you are unaware of further details of Diane’s military career. Diane, during her 25-year stint, ended as a Colonel and was involved in highly-guarded military operations as a Special Forces Commander. After 9/11 she headed up a 120-person classified organization in the war on terrorism and often personally briefed Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and General Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

    As for the Library of Congress position, she and all of her references were told that she had the job. It was only after revealing that she was transgendering from male to female, that the offer was rescinded. Logically speaking, no offer would be made, had “clearance” been an issue.

    This case is about prejudice and discrimination, period.

    Sincerely,
    Kathleen

  15. Andrew says:

    Kathleen,

    I am well aware of Mr. Schoer’s background. But is has no bearing on my earlier points that his clearance will be reviewed and the review may cause delay.

    It seems you are quite emotional about this issue due to personal involvement. I will try to keep that in mind as a reason why you don’t seem to understand the issue of the clearance I have brought up. I know you probably have NO experience with security requirements or what is involved. That is why your last post is actually a bit comical to anyone with experience in these issues.

    Facts are what is important.

    Prior experience has ZERO impact on a security clearance for any issue that demands review. Mr. Schroer can have had all the access to classified info in the world and have briefed even the President himself daily, but if he so much as visits even one psychiatrist within the timeframe between clearance reviews it will necessitate a thorough review by an approved authority. Dependent on the issue for the visit, the amount of time for the review will be longer.

    Past experience, performance or access to information means NOTHING as for the need for review of his clearance. It only matters during the review as to judging whether the person in question can be trusted with classified info. A favorable record increases Mr. Schroer’s chances that he will maintain access to classified info. As I stated in a previous post, homosexuality does not prevent a person from gaining or maintaining a clearance.

    Now to fact number two. If the sole reason for the removal of an official job offer was because of Mr. Schroer’s sexual preference and desire to have a transgender operation then he has cause for a lawsuit. That is a fact. But it must be proved with other facts.

    Kathleen, what is your proof that Mr. Schroer ever had an official job offer. Because he told you or because you read it on the ACLU site? Have you ever seen a copy of an offer letter?

    I apologize if this sounds like an ad hominem attack, but your rational is extremely short-sighted. You cannot categorically pronounce that a case is ALL about “prejudice and discrimination period” when there are almost NO facts released to date from the defense and the plaintiff hasn’t released ANY supportive evidence except his opinion of the events. The term “period” means that essentially the case is closed and no facts are necessary beyond what the plaintiff has offered in his good faith.

    If you have verifiable evidence, please present it. Else, please maintain a more open mind. You don’t have to be open minded. But I think your argument in support of Mr. Schroer’s actions will be more easily heard if you maintain at least an appearance of being open to reasonable arguments. Often issues that need to be debated in the forefront of society are drowned out when the proponents of the arguments oversimplify these arguments at the sacrifice of reason.

    This is my last post, because I feel that no one is truly reading my posts in detail or perhaps no one simply understands the issues of security clearances well enough to understand the points I broached. I am not sure Mr. Schroer even needs a clearance. Therefore, there is nothing more to gain by these discussions until more info becomes available and verifiable.

    I thank those who contributed and the originator of the post.

  16. Barb says:

    Andrew,
    Very, very seldom do I address a person directly because it becomes more than a debate. However, you have pulled out the Security, Clearance card too often and seem to have a hang up with Diane being a pinko communist or some such because she is transsexual. You’ve been watching too many Jerry Springer Shows. Why on God’s little green earth do you think those people who call themselves transexuals on that show represent transsexuals when those other dysfunctional people don’t represent you?

    Transsexuals are…, doctors, lawyers, professionals of every description, and yes there really are some who are rocket scientist. We are husbands, wives, sweethearts, and best buddies. Your computers communicate with one another because of a transsexual who made it happen.

    The boys and girls who are making a better world for you to live in are doing it quietly by blending in as part of the society. Diane only wanted a job. The last thing in the world she wanted was to tell the world she was having to file a lawsuit against the government because some homophobic person heard a couple words, gender change.

    One of the girls was a James Bond girl. The last thing she wanted was the world to know but you know what happens.

    The last thing I want is to have people know. I also want to be the girl next door, the buddy, the girl geek, or the farm girl. All of which I do very well.

    When you eat a slice of bread, pasta, pizza, cake, or anything made with wheat flour, I want you to keep in mind I may have raised and havested that product you are eating. Are you still going to eat wheat flour products?

    Stop throwing stones at Diane just because she was outted and is an easy target. This girl made sure you could sleep in a warm bed every night by putting her life on the line for too many years. I put my time in one of those hellacious wars. I’d rather have her covering my back than any macho, testosterone driven nutcake.

    Why don’t you google transsexual successes and find out how a few of us are making a difference in your world.
    I wish you happiness
    always,
    Barb

  17. Andrew says:

    I had checked this post one last time because I recently learned some news about Mr. Schroer. Then I saw Barb’s comments. Barb, I don’t quite know how to reply to you because you must be reading some other post in order to try to accuse me of calling anyone a pinko communist.

    The clearance issue has been raised only once and also properly couched to allow for it not even being an issue in this case. I do not know how to be more fair-minded.

    Your emotional displacement on me is disconcerting, but perhaps understandable because you think I am judging Mr. Schroer vs. the circumstances. I have tried my best to merely ask everyone to think more openly about the situation before jumping to conclusions. Perhaps this issue is too emotionally charged to ask for such. Mr. Schroer may indeed be a victim of prejudice here and thereby receive some form of justice…or there may be more to this. We will have to wait and see.

    I think I now understand where your emotional displacement is coming from. I was unaware you were a transexual and therefore likely responding to the whole of some others’ poor/mean-spirited reaction to your self these past years vs. the core of my points. You must realize that everyone is not throwing stones at Mr. Schroer or you even when they broach rational arguments. I am sorry if you have been hurt or experienced Jerry Springer-esque reactions in the past. But that doesn’t excuse you from villanizing anyone who disagrees with you by making up words to put in their mouth or to demean them without giving them a fair chance. Presumption and false labeling are the starting points of close-mindedness. That is the heart of prejudice and something I think you are the most concerned with from the start.

    Please review my comments. I think I have been fair and balanced in my approach and taken great measures to avoid resulting to personal attacks or demeaning remarks unlike yourself. I have not once judged Mr. Schroer for his choice to obtain his scheduled operation. I have not once said he would be a poor worker/hard to work with/or anything of the like. If you think otherwise please copy and paste from my own posting so I may see where I have been rude or used such harsh words as you have intimated.

    Ultimately, I wish both you and Mr. Schroer well. I am sorry I used this post for an exercise in logic. It seems it is too controversial and emotionally charged of an issue to prove other points within it.

  18. Barb says:

    I have several issues with your comments. First off, clearance can’t even be brought up because Diane decided to change clothes and her figure. Everyone equates homophobic boy-girl issues with mental illness. Thus the transsexuals are a clearance-security issue. Not in this lifetime they aren’t except by the crowd who is so unsure of their own gender they can’t handle anyone else changing theirs.

    Who jumped to conclusions? Diane was hired as a terrorist analist. Diane was fired as a transsexual. That’s pretty black and white to me but maybe I have a clearer picture of the mess since I am exactly what Diane is. Human, much to my regret a lot of times.

    You keep refering to “Mr. Schroer”. It’s the ultimate insult. Diane said she was female. I can handle the Mr. Lee comments because I have been dealing with people for so long I understand their need to hold onto what little gender identity they have. Diane has dropped into this gender blender most recently and needs support.

    I know girls who have killed themselves after being mentally and verbably abused as they struggled to find their place in life. Diane will make it because she’s seen the worst in humanity already. What they say or do to her won’t come as that much of a shock to her. That is probably the reason she decided to fight back instead of hiding in shame. She’s one tuff cookie.

    I’m betting you have met transsexuals before and never knew. We aren’t monsters or abominations except on the late night fright night movies where transsexuals are always a nut job and enjoys slicing and dicing their victiums.

    Either your prejudice or your lack of knowledge is showing. Probably the later since you seem to be a gentleman in every other respect.
    always,
    Barb

  19. Andrew says:

    I apologize if I have inadvertently offended you or Mr. Schroer somehow. Whatever Mr. Schroer wishes to be called is up to him. My references to him as Mr. Schroer stem from the fact I do not believe he has completed an official name change nor the operation itself to date. Therefore it is most accurate to refer to him as the press has and ultimately how his official lawsuit has been filed.

    I will not belabor the clearance issue much further as it is a matter of policy with no eye towards me personally supporting or condemning the current policies of the government in this regard. That could occupy another post. Even if we remove the issue of transexuality in total, a simple name change might be cause for necessary review by a field agent. This is policy and I do not set policy. Therefore it isn’t a choice we can make to say there is or is not any need for it. As my previous post stated the review doesn’t mean disqualification. The defense of what I had intended as a simple / short point has grown much larger so that it appears to be a primary argument. In that, it has lost its value, perhaps by detracting from other points people have with this case.

    Best of luck to you, Barb. I had hoped to finish with this post, but realized I had closed my last posting with more questions. I have no more questions. Thank you for responding and for the thoughts you have shared..