Dobson Is Pronoun Impaired

I see James Dobson's collection of misfits over at "Focus on the Family" have decided to dredge their cesspool for an opinion on Diane Schroer's discrimination suit against the Library of Congress.

Quoting from Dobson's mouth organ, Citizenlink:

David Schroer, a retired U.S. Army Special Forces commander, testified Tuesday in federal court against the Library of Congress, claiming he deserved a job even as he was undergoing surgery to look like a woman.

Schroer, who goes by Diane, said his job offer was withdrawn when he told his would-be supervisor about his surgery. The American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit in 2005 on Schroer's behalf. He is seeking the job and damages, which are capped at $300,000.

First of all, I have a huge problem with referring to a transsexual by pronouns other than those appropriate for their day to day social presentation. It's beyond crass.

The second problem with this is the fact that these people see nothing wrong with using a person's previous name, even if they have legally had it changed since. Not only is this inappropriate, it can actually expose the person in question to real danger. There are plenty of people out there who have beaten the tar out of someone for being transsexual in the first place.

Take a look at the picture on the left, and tell me for a moment that the person is a man, or that using masculine pronouns is even marginally appropriate.

It's really not all that complicated - if someone is living socially as a woman, use female pronouns. But more importantly, ask yourself in what way does Ms. Schroer's decision to transition impair her ability to do a job?

The job that she was applying for did not require any attributes that are uniquely masculine, and the job offer was rescinded upon disclosure of her gender transition status.

"Activists will no doubt attempt to use this case to lobby to have the nebulous concept of 'gender identity' added as a category meriting special protection under federal law," said Caleb H. Price, research analyst for Focus on the Family.

"Americans have no interest in seeing their tax dollars spent on ‘transgender’ individuals seeking to indulge their confusion — let alone the expenses involved in defending the Library of Congress’ sound decision not to hire Mr. Schroer."

These paragraphs from Dobson's organization demonstrate a deeply held ignorance about transgender people, and their condition. While someone who is transsexual may well be confusing to others, when the decision to transition is finally made, it is plenty clear that they are no longer confused about themselves. Transition is not a matter of 'indulgence' - such a characterization is disrespectful and ignorant of the emotional crucible that transsexuals have been subjected to by life itself.

Referring to Ms. Schroer's case itself:

But the job offer was withdrawn one day after Schroer, in a meeting with her future boss, explained that she was under a health care provider's care for gender dysphoria, the clinical term used to describe the experience of being transgender. Schroer explained she would be using a traditionally feminine name (Diane instead of David) and would dress in traditionally feminine clothes when she started the new job, and would not have sexual reassignment surgery for at least a year.

There is a minor technical niggle - the clinical term in the DSM-IV is "Gender Identity Disorder". Gender Dysphoria is a somewhat older term, and although it describes the emotional turmoil a transsexual may experience before beginning the transition process, it ceases to be meaningful by the time that they choose to live full-time in their chosen gender.

This is nothing less than basic discrimination on the basis of gender. Period. Someone's skills, knowledge and competence doesn't vanish in a cloud when they start to transition, and withdrawing a job offer on the basis of transition is ridiculously narrow minded.