From the Washington Post:
The offer, for a job as a terrorism research analyst, was pulled the day after Schroer told her future boss that she was making the medical transition from being a man, David, to being a woman, Diane.[…]
Schroer, of Alexandria, had a prestigious military career that ended in retirement in 2004 after seven years in the Army’s Special Forces command. After the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Schroer became director of a 120-member classified organization that tracked and targeted international terrorists. She routinely briefed the country’s top officials, including Vice President Cheney.[…]
The Library of Congress, represented by Justice Department attorneys, has argued that Schroer cannot sue because the Civil Rights Act does not protect transsexuals or prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender identity.
Anyone else reminded of the desperately needed Farsi and Arabic linguists the Pentagon fired for being queer?
So is it the case that conservatives really don’t believe that the “war on terror” is really very serious, and that’s why they won’t bother employing the best anti-terrorism experts if they happen to be trans or queer? Or is it that their bigotry is so extreme and irrational that they’d honestly prefer for more Americans to die in terrorist attacks, rather than allow gay, lesbian and/or trans people to be employed? I’m honestly not sure which it is.
(Curtsy: The Debate Link.)
What do “conservatives” have to do with it? The job offer was withdrawn by one person, Preece, whose politics are unspecified. Even assuming she is conservative, one person’s actions are hardly representative of what “conservatives” think about the war on terror.
The conservatives are running the relevant branches of government. The firing happened in 2005, and not a single conservative in the Bush administration has lifted a finger to remedy the situation, or to make sure it doesn’t happens again. Nor have they done anything to remedy the situation of the fired Arabic and Farsi translators — for instance, hired them to be State department employees.
More importantly, if liberals and progressives were in charge of the government, this sort of blatant discrimination by the Feds would be illegal. But the coalition of Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats who form the majority of Congress would never allow it; and if such a bill got through Congress, Bush would almost certainly veto it.
Nor has there been, that I’m aware of, any outcry against this crap from the fighting keyboard brigades, or from the National Review and other conservative outlets. On the contrary, the Conservatives in congress, and in the Bush administration, from all appearances are in accord with the Conservative base on these and other anti-queer positions.
More importantly, if liberals and progressives were in charge of the government, this sort of blatant discrimination by the Feds would be illegal.
No. If liberals and progressives were in charge of the government, trans activists would be asking “why the hell isn’t this sort of blatant discrimination illegal?” while the liberal and progressive pols tried to hide behind each other. Your politicians are no more willing than ours to actually put political capital on the line for transfolk. I seem to remember a time in the not that fuzzily distant past liberals held the White House and both houses of Congress. They didn’t do shit for transfolk, afaik.
Robert, I don’t think that liberal politicians are saints or especially brave on trans issues; I just think they’re way better than either centrist Democrats or any kind of Republican.
That said, I don’t think your comparison to the first two years of the Clinton administration (that’s what I assume you mean?) holds much water. First of all, Bill Clinton is a centrist (“third way! third way!”), not a liberal, as were many Dems in congress. Second of all, 2008 is not 1992; trans issues have become a lot more mainstream in liberal circles in the last 15 years. (Although of course, there’s still a long way to go.)
Going by election numbers, the 5 most liberal states are Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New York, Vermont, and Maryland, while the 5 most conservative are Utah, Idaho, Wyoming, Nebraska, and Oklahoma.
Four of the five liberal states have laws against employment discrimination against trans people, either from statutes, court rulings, or regulations. In contrast, none of the five conservative states have such laws. (Source) Is that just a big coincidence?
Well, that’s a fair point. Maybe I’m mistaken and President Obama and the Dem-dominated Congress are going to pass the federal trans discrimination act. We’ll see. (Or not.)
I don’t think Obama (circa 2008) is all that liberal, and there are many “Blue Dog” democrats in congress. Furthermore, it effectively takes 60 votes to pass anything through the Senate, and there aren’t going to be 60 Dems in the Senate.
So although I’d be thrilled if I’m wrong about this, I don’t expect that we’ll see a federal anti-discrimination law protecting trans people anytime in the next couple of years. However, I do think it’s likely that direct anti-queer discrimination by the executive branch will go way down.
Perhaps they felt it was a security issue; up until very recently, being gay made it harder to get British security classification. The reason generally given was that gay people would be more vulnerable to blackmail. It wouldn’t surprise me if this were the case for transpeople too.
(This was in the news because MI5 has now teamed up with Stonewall to actively seek gay recruits.
That’s an argument that makes perfect sense for closeted gay people, Andrew. I don’t see how you blackmail someone who is open about what they’re doing.
“Give us the access codes, or we tell your employer that you’re a transperson!”
“I told my bosses that last month over lunch. They were cool with it. What else you got?”
Also, trans != gay.
Heh. I can just imagine how that interview must have gone.
“Welcome to MI5, Mr. Smith. Be aware that if we should discover you to be a homosexual, you will lose your job. So if a foreign agent tries to blackmail you, be sure to give them whatever they want.”
Andrew speaks truth; many of the spies who defected from the UK to the USSR were gay. And yes, note those gay people who were fluent Farsi and/or Arabic speakers, who defected from ME states to the USA.
Queerness is not a security risk, but homophobia clearly is.
I gather that the open acceptance of gay people nowadays is one of the things that caused the change in policy. It would be nice to think Thene’s point was another.
Pingback: Alas, a blog » Blog Archive » Court Rules That Anti-Trans Discrimination Is Sex Discrimination