There was no immediate reaction from the library, which had claimed at trial that transgender people are not covered under federal anti-discrimination laws.

Unfortunately, that's been the historical interpretation: that "sex" (with regard to anti-discrimination laws) refers only to being male or female, and does not include the concepts of one's sex/gender identity and the presentation thereof, transsexualism, transgenderism, androgyny, etc. (see Ulane v. Eastern Airlines and Etsitty v. Utah Transit Authority). That's why explicit language (such as "sexual orientation," "gender identity") is considered necessary in such laws, even though "sex" should cover all of the above (as far as I'm concerned). It's refreshing to see this type of logical interpretation from U.S. District Court Judge James Robinson, especially when the decision points out the "legislating from the bench" of past decisions, which set bad precedent.

Excerpts from the court document:

Sex vs. Sexuality...

Schroer’s second legal theory is that, because gender identity is a component of sex, discrimination on the basis of gender identity is sex discrimination. In support of this contention, Schroer adduced the testimony of Dr. Walter Bockting, a tenured associate professor at the University of Minnesota Medical School who specializes in gender identity disorders. Dr. Bockting testified that it has long been accepted in the relevant scientific community that there are nine factors that constitute a person’s sex. One of these factors is gender identity, which Dr. Bockting defined as one’s personal sense of being male or female.7 Tr. at 210.

The Library adduced the testimony of Dr. Chester Schmidt, a professor of psychiatry at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and also an expert in gender identity disorders. Dr. Schmidt disagreed with Dr. Bockting’s view of the prevailing scientific consensus and testified that he and his colleagues regard gender identity as a component of “sexuality” rather than “sex.” According to Dr. Schmidt, “sex” is made up of a number of facets, each of which has a determined biologic etiology. Dr. Schmidt does not believe that gender identity has a single, fixed etiology. Tr. at 372, 400-04.

To be fair, this is still being debated today, but based on my research over the years, the current majority opinion seems to be with Dr. Bockting. However, I don't necessarily consider the two explanations to be mutually exclusive. Transgenderism is a broad concept, and I think there are various reasons why some individuals don't neatly fit into the categories of male and female.

Here's the key aspect (for me) of Robinson's reasoning...

Imagine that an empl... [ Read More (0.4k in body) ]

Shannon wrote:

A former Army commander who underwent a sex change operation was discriminated against by the U.S. government, a federal judge ruled Friday in an important victory for transgenders claiming bias in the workplace.
Diane Schroer won her federal lawsuit against the Library of Congress after officials backed out of a 2005 job offer when told of her intention to become a transsexual. At the time of the job interview for a position as a senior terrorism research analyst, David Schroer was a male. He had been a onetime Army Special Forces commander.
U.S. District Court Judge James Robinson said Schroer's civil rights were violated.
"The evidence established that the Library was enthusiastic about hiring David Schroer -- until she disclosed her transsexuality," Robinson wrote. "The Library revoked the offer when it learned that a man named David intended to become, legally, culturally and physically, a woman named Diane. This was discrimination 'because of ... sex.' "

Good for them! It is nice to see them do something right. :)

Don't worry, plenty of justice coming from McCain/Palin appointed judges.