Trans studies – an academic field of study focusing on the
experience of "trans" people and the insights provided thereby into
such traditional academic subjects as medicine, sociology, anthropology,
psychology, philosophy, law and history. This is a relatively new field
of study which "promises to offer important new insights into such
fundamental questions as how bodies mean or what constitutes human
personhood." (Stryker:1998:155)
It is not limited to "gender theory" or "cultural studies", but presents basic challenges to the foundations of
epistemology, ontology and ethics. While it is often subsumed under gay
and lesbian studies or "queer theory", it is at the same time
disruptive of structured sexualities such as "gay" and "lesbian."
(Stone 1991:296) It encompasses many disciplines, such as medicine
(Benjamin 1977), sociology (Devor 1997), anthropology (Valentine 2000),
psychology (Brown and Rounsley 1996), philosophy (
Essays
1 What does it mean not to discriminate on the basis of “gender identity”?
2 What is Queer Theory?
3 What is
the difference between transsexuals and crossdressers?
5 Preserving civilization as we know it.
6 What is heterosexual privilege?
7 Marilyn
Monroe: Not The
Ultimate Woman
8 Do men have a distinctive handwriting?
10 The seven academic views of transgender
11 Is discrimination an individual or a system phenomenon?
12 What justifies sex segregation?
********************
1
What does it mean not to discriminate on the basis of “gender identity”? Does
"gender identity" have a single correct definition? When I ask people responsible for the
adoption of policies that protect gender identity, they are either really
unsure of the definition or give it an very unusual
definition. In fact, there is no real agreement as to what the phrase actually
means. Most narrowly defined, gender identity refers to one's
self-identification in regards to being male or female. Most broadly defined,
it includes all of the psycho-social behaviors appurtenant thereto, such as
body shape, body styling, body language, gait, voice, communication style and
interests. It is difficult to tell, without asking, whether the term is being
used in a narrow or broad sense by any particular speaker.
I would argue, however, that the use of the term "gender identity" in
legal documents should be construed broadly. Some people construe "gender
identity" narrowly, and say that "gender expression" and
"gender characteristics" cover more territory. But these related
topics cannot be so divided. Otherwise, one could argue that "race"
only refers to someone's self-identification as a particular race, not their
racial "expression," and it's not a violation if I fire them because
of how they style their hair (such as cornrows), wear clothing (like a do-rag
or a dashiki), or I just don't like their face (wide nose and big lips). It's
not a violation because that's racial expression or racial characteristics. But
isn't that stupid? Yes, it's stupid, because it's racial discrimination whether
the boss says "you're fired because I don't like anyone with black
skin" or "you're fired because I don't like anyone who wears cornrows."
Racial expression and characteristics cannot be delinked from racial identity.
Protection of an identity means protection of the expression of that identity.
Similarly, when a non-discrimination policy says the employer won't
discriminate on the basis of gender identity, it's too late to argue that
employees can't crossdress because it's merely an "expression" of
gender identity. Protection of identity means protection of the expression of
that identity. Yes, I do realize that you and your clients don't like
cross-dressers. Neither did Bull Connor. But if gender
identity is protected, then so is its expression, cross-dressing. The
objection to cross-dressing is an objection on the basis of gender identity,
regardless of semantic attempts to separate it out as an objection to mere
"expression" unrelated to any "identity."
Someone who objects to my argument could raise the point that crossdressing is only
an expression of gender identity when the person involved is a transsexual,
meaning that they are doing so as part of an avowed process of changing sex.
Therefore, unless someone declares their intention to change sex, and shows
evidence of it, such as a letter from a therapist or a surgeon, crossdressing
is not protected by a policy protecting "gender identity." This
argument is problematic for another reason. But frankly now I'm tired of this
and need to get back to transcribing. I'll check back later to give you the
punchline.
2 What Is Queer Theory? There have always been queers, of one
slant or another, in every society. The faces change, but the identity remains
the same. In Western culture, the epithet ‘queer’ refers to someone of
non-standard sexuality, in look, in talk or in deed. Someone who is ‘queer’ may
in fact be heterosexual, but does not look like a ‘real man’ or ‘real woman’. A
‘queer’, however defined, is a legitimate target for harm. Thus, queer theory
is more than gay and lesbian studies. Gay and lesbian studies are studies of
homosexuality and its expressions in such fields as literature, history and
philosophy, whereas queer theory is the theory that seeks to account for the
oppression of people of variant sexuality and others accorded similar status.
Queer theory is more than the study of prejudice, however. Feminism, for example,
studies the oppression of women and other similarly oppressed groups , but no one would say that feminism is the study of
prejudice. Rather, queer theory is the study of The Other -- how and why
‘queers’ are defined, created and used.
‘Queers’ could be limited strictly to gays and lesbians, but that would be
unduly limiting. In addition to homos, there are many ‘Others’: the gooks we
tried to eradicate in Vietnam and Korea, the spics, the wops and the micks who
emigrated into our cities, the niggers we brought here as slaves and the injuns
who had the bad luck to be in the way of our land of fortune. Are you shocked
by this? Consider this: these raw and offensive terms are not the
result of prejudice, they are the
justification for it. The Bible talks about some of the first queers,
the Hebes, in
Queer theory is the theoretical basis for our treatment of ‘queers,’ of
outsiders. It is what allows us to create others as ‘queers’, to think that
identities are fixed and determine who we are, and that some identities are
better than others and to be treated as such. This is why I have used raw,
offensive words -- the real words -- not the euphemisms. This is the world we
live in – a world in which some identities are invalid and subject to bad
treatment because of that identity and a world in which such treatment is
justified. If you are shocked, remember that you have on occasion used these
words, have thought them, have meant them, have laughed at them in jokes, even
if inwardly, have let other people in your presence talk this way and think
this way and let them think that you think this way too. You, who live in a
world such as this, in which there are 25 million rapes annually, including
incest, where 1 million children are forced into the sex trade each year, (see),
where widows are burned with their deceased husbands, where people sent to
prison are routinely raped and killed by stronger prisoners, where people are
tortured to death in the grossest ways for dissident beliefs, where people go
hungry and without medical care in the street, where there is all manner of the
rawest, most offensive suffering – you have no right to be shocked. Hate crimes
are just beginning to be tracked, but the statistics emerging are even more
horrifying than the individual stories of the cruelest brutality. Queer theory
seeks to understand our notion of queerness and how it operates to create our
society in all its raw offensiveness. This is no time to be shocked by mere
words. This is no time to focus on sexual impropriety. This is the time to be
shocked by our capacity to create human suffering and think that it is
justified. And your capacity to ignore that.
3 Transsexuals vs.
Crossdressers. I often hear people
trying to explain "transgender" by confidently reciting a list.
"For example," they will say, "there are transsexuals who
have sex change surgery and live full-time as the opposite sex, which is
different from crossdressers, who are male heterosexuals who like to
relax by putting on female clothing in privacy." This statement is fraught
with problems, but I would like to address the most dangerous one: the idea
that transsexuals and crossdressers are different in some important way. I
recognize, of course, that the two are distinct, but I dispute the importance
of that distinction. It is a distinction without a difference.
Transsexuals wish to be and consider themselves to be
the opposite sex. Crossdressers do not. That is the sole distinction. It is a
matter of intent only, and not action or behavior. Because of this, one cannot
tell by looking who is a transsexual and who is a cross-dresser. On the one
hand, some transsexuals have never worn clothing of the opposite sex; and some
have not had surgery and never will. Yet they validly declare themselves
transsexuals. On the other hand, some crossdressers have taken medical
intervention to change their bodies; some wear clothing of the opposite sex all
or most of the time and pass undetectably as members of the opposite sex,
though they do not consider themselves members of the opposite sex. The only
difference is the label that a person chooses to take. There is no
"real" difference between the two, except as a self-identification. A
physician cannot distinguish between a crossdresser and a transsexual by
physical examination (though that doesn't stop them from trying).
There is a social difference, however. Transsexuals are given more credence in
society because "transsexualism" is seen as a "medical
condition", a gender "identity", whereas
"crossdressing" is seen as an extreme eccentricity, a gender
"expression". There is no basis, however, for this notion other than
fiat. These are both identities and expressions, and there is nothing that
distinguishes them as concepts. The attempt to limit "gender
identity" to one's identification as male or female reprivileges anatomy
as a hierarchical structure. The attempt to use surgery as a dividing line does
the same. It makes no sense to spend three decades arguing that "anatomy
is not destiny", only to begin arguing that "identity is
destiny" or some such thing.
The plain fact is that modern society is willing to accept transgenders as long
as they reenact gendered norms, in reverse, challenging nothing, and to the
extent they "pass." Who is really being protected by this
construction of "gender identity"?
4 When am I legally
female? What does it mean to say “I am now legally male” or “I am now
legally female”? Nothing, at least nothing demonstrably
valid. There are no statutes which define the moment,
though there are statutes and regulations which permit changes on government
documents that contain gender markers. These statutes base the right to make
such a change on various forms of proof, ranging from a doctor’s note suggesting
that such a change is medically indicated to a surgeon’s sworn affidavit
testifying to certain required surgical procedures. None of these statutes or
regulations specifically state whether or when a
person becomes “legally” male or female, although a broad interpretation could
certainly include such a reading. However, courts have interpreted these
statutes and regulations narrowly so that the broader implications of becoming
“legally” male or female are specifically excluded for such purposes as marriage,
inheritance, employment, military service, and incarceration. No court in the
5 Preserving Civilization
As We Know It. When conservatives make reference to LGBT people
in the same context as pedophiles and kleptomaniacs, gay advocacy groups often
complain that this implies that gays are child molesters and thieves. While
such an implication can be inferred, the more direct issue being raised is the
fact that the Line is moving, and where it will stop is not
immediately obvious. The reference to pedophiles and kleptomaniacs is an apt
one, because both of these are mental illnesses as defined by the Diagnostic
and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association (APA).
Transgenders are included in the panoply of mental illnesses under the
diagnosis of “gender identity disorder.” While lesbians, gays and bisexuals are
no longer included, the deletion of homosexuality as a mental illness was
accomplished in 1974 after a close vote of the APA prompted by a long and
vigorous series of protests by homosexual advocacy organizations. While I
believe that the APA’s action was proper, and that “gender identity disorder”
should similarly be deleted, it cannot be denied that the Line is moving,
and where it will stop is not immediately obvious. Will pedophiles next demand
legal protections? The answer is yes. In fact, they have already demanded it,
as set forth in the platform of the North American Man-Boy Love Association, an
organization in existence for some 20 years. When the Line moves, it is no
shallow argument that Civilization, as we know it, is at an end.
Indeed, it is my fervent hope that Civilization, As We Know It, is at an end,
though we shall not be so lucky. In the name of Civilization, we have unjustly
killed, enslaved, raped and pillaged, tortured, imprisoned and oppressed in a
thousand different ways. I have seen it in action, and I have been on the sharp
end of the stick. This is not an argument in favor of anarchy or pedophiles,
but rather an argument that Civilization As We Know It
has no business taking the high moral ground, or insisting on its preservation.
I am glad that the
6 What is heterosexual privilege? Privilege is the prerogative of
acceptance. In liberal circles, there is
talk of transgender acceptance, but it often noblesse oblige, the
belief that the privileged are obliged to help those less fortunate. Such talk assumes the normative viewpoints of transgender
people – mentally ill, sexually deviant, or prostitutes. It is not understood that transgender people
are all around us, living fulfilling lives, as long as they pass. Liberal academics often use
transgender people as stalking horses in their texts to show the evils of
society, while little understanding how they perpetuate stereotypes by such
means.
I read the following in a journal article by a psychologist,
criticizing certain postmodern writers: “Often, the protagonists of these texts
-- the lesbian, the transvestite, the sadomasochist, the hermaphrodite -- are
made emblems of a third space, a space outside of various forms of cultural
oppression. In this status, they perform an important cultural service -- they
challenge heterosexism, reified notions of gender identity, repressed forms of
sexual expression, the hypocrises of a puritan, yet
violent, culture. At the same time, when these figures become postmodern heros and heroines, the pain of fragmentation, of
marginality, of indeterminacy is often overlooked or glossed over. Discussions
of the film Paris Is Burning are a case in point. While most most critics were
aware of the fascinating way that the film's subjects made of their oppressed
position a creative and celebratory experience, few critics spoke of the ways
that these creations were marked by pain and by the terms of the oppression.
For example, few voices wondered why people whose experience of family is so
devastating would chose to form nuclear-styled families. Paris Is Burning
clearly suggests that there is more to parody than ironic distance and
critique; there is also longing.”
Lynne Layton, Trauma, Gender Identity and Sexuality: Discourses on
Fragmentation, American Imago 52:107 (1995)
My comments: Liberal talk tends to reinforce the idea that
transgenders are not ordinary people. Interestingly,
I find a similar distanced attitude in some of those who have championed
transgender policies at their corporations.
They cannot see that their policies are problematic for transgender
people because such policies often do not take into account the real needs of
transgender employees, such as restroom accommodations and medical insurance. When asked about such needs, they hesitate to
give support. Such “championship of the
oppressed” extends the hand while pulling away the chair. It is as if these liberal champions, in
feigning the naturalness of transgenders, ignore the realities of transgender
life. Furthermore, there is a certain self-congratulatory tone to their remarks
that masks the difficulty of transgender experience. They cannot be unaware of
the difficulty in our cultural environment that so severely stigmatizes the
transgender. To me, this denial seems a form of middle-class privilege, not to
know of oppression or its effects on those around them, a means of denying
their complicity in the social mechanisms of oppression, and a means of
feigning their own naturalness. It is similar to the loud and exaggerated
claims of certain highly-skilled upper and middle class professionals of my
acquaintance, that they are unable to work a calculator, a telephone, a coffee
machine or a computer, and must beg the help of their secretaries (and other servants).
Their distanced attitude allows them to make others labor and boss them around
and mark them as inferiors, while pretending they are merely asking for help.
They deny their role in maintaining a hierarchy of oppression. It is a stance,
a deception, perhaps even to themselves, and perhaps most of all to themselves.
7 Marilyn Monroe: Not the Ultimate
Woman. From Phil Stern, photographer, on Marilyn Monroe: Marilyn
Monroe is one of the finest examples of the merchandise that
My comment: While not everyone can learn to be Marilyn Monroe,
Marilyn sure did. Ultimately, being a “sexy woman” is nothing more than
learning and repeating well the stereotyped cues of sexual availability. These come in the form of clothes, cosmetics, and
women’s magazines. “Sexy boots,” for
example, are intended to communicate to others the shape of the leg, the
willingness to wear uncomfortable attire to gain the attentions of men, and the
idea that one desires such attentions. (I’m not condemning this, as I am the owner of
several pairs of such boots, but my desire for attention has not removed my
observational ability.) Some of us learn
the stereotypes better than others, but it is learned. Yes, hormones change the
shape of one's body, but that is nothing but a few small functional
differences. We think the difference in shape between men and women is large,
but that is a purely cultural judgment, and frankly we have a larger measure of
control over our body shape than is commonly supposed. The proof for that is
the popularity of diets and breast augmentation procedures for women and weight
lifting and short haircuts for men. If difference were natural, there would be
no call for such procedures, for their very artificiality would make them
useless. But, instead, we are unable to distinguish between the feminizing
effect of natural breasts and their artificial brethren. I have no confidence
that an alien would be able to tell the men from the women unless we were
naked, just as we cannot tell the sex of a mosquito, a snake or a cat just by
looking. In fact, many people have trouble distinguishing the sex of a butch
woman with a short haircut and unisex clothing, which is such looks are
disparaged. They call into question the naturalness of our gendered world, and
we punish people for that. Frankly, my pride in my femininity may be nothing
more than my relief at my ability to reap the rewards of conformity. Yes, it
keeps me warm at night, and I will fight to keep it. It's getting damn cold out
there.
The following from Allure Magazine, October 2003: “Handwriting
can provide clues to the writer's gender, but it's not as reliable an indicator
as people may think. In one study conducted by Vivien Burr, a psychologist at
the
My comment: People, even scientists, in their rush to validate
their belief that the difference between the sexes is fundamental and
unalterable, point to such things as handwriting and character as evidence of
the deep roots of sex as nature, but do not bother to address the possibility
that these are learned behaviors. Kudos to this scientist for
understanding that the fact that women have to learn to write carefully -- and
men don't have to -- does not necessarily point to a natural fact but a social
fact.
9 Are Transgenders Gay? The
“Trans 101” answer is no, because gender identity is unrelated to sexual
orientation. Many transgender activists,
in attempting to explain “gender identity” in a simple manner, unintentionally
use logically conflicting concepts that are the source of confusion about
transgenders. One of the popular notions among transgender activists is that
gay (referred to as "sexual orientation") and transgender (referred
to as "gender identity") are completely separate concepts. In this
conception, "sexual orientation" refers to the sex of one's partner,
whereas "gender identity" is one's psychological identity as male or
female (or, as is sometimes said, masculine or feminine). Educational materials
stress that employers must be taught that gays and lesbians are not the same as
transgenders, because one is about liking boys or girls, and the other is about
being boys or girls. The difficulty with this notion is that it contradicts the
popularly held belief among transgender activists that gays and lesbians should
be part of a single advocacy community with transgenders. If sexual orientation
and gender identity are completely separate, why are transgenders any concern
of gays and lesbians, except insofar as gays and lesbians are sympathetic to
any oppressed but unrelated group? The tension between these two notions is a
significant source of tension between transgenders and gays/lesbians. Some in
each group believe in common cause, and some in each group are against it.
Almost no one recognizes the source of the tension.
In an attempt to resolve this tension and harmonize the conflicting principles,
a few perceptive transgender activists now argue that "gender is a gay
issue," meaning that the oppression of gays and lesbians occur primarily
because of their failure to fit into stereotypical gender norms. In other
words, the oppression of gays and lesbians occurs primarily when straight
people see an effeminate gay man or a masculine lesbian. Such oppression is not
on the basis of sexual orientation, because it is not based on that person's
partner, but that person's gender expression. Thus, not only transgenders, but
also gays and lesbians are oppressed on the basis of gender, making gender a
gay issue. Putting aside the problem of finding empirical evidence to support
this theory, it contradicts the notion that gay and transgender are completely
separate concepts. If transgenders should be included in a single advocacy
community with gays and lesbians because gender is a gay issue, and sexual
orientation involves gender identity, then how can it be claimed that sexual
orientation and gender identity are completely separate concepts? Why is it so
important to separate sexual orientation and gender identity in the first
place? Most straight people think they are similar and related already, so why
go through the torturous educational exercise of convincing everyone they are
completely separate? What's wrong with saying transgender is a version of gay
expression?
10 The Seven Blind Men. There are seven basic academic views of transgender.
1. The standard legal view is that transgenders are people who deny their true sex, and this is in some instances permitted by judicial or statutory authority, particularly where surgical techniques are used.
2. The standard psychiatric view is that transgenders are people who feel pathologically compelled to deny their true sex due to complex psychodynamic and possibly biological factors early in life, and medical assistance and acquiescence is justifiable in certain circumstances, particularly where they pass as the opposite sex without difficulty.
3. The standard psychological view is that transgenders are people who face myriad conflicts on a daily basis regarding their gender identity and must struggle to reveal their true essence to themselves and others, and that authoritative knowledge and compassionate insight into the transgender experience will alleviate the burden of confusion, fear and frustration that plagues their lives.
4. The standard anthropological view is that transgenders are people who challenge cultural notions of sex and gender, and the resulting tension provides insight into the nature and artifices of culture and cultural beliefs.
5. The standard historical view is that transgenders are a group that first emerged in the mid-twentieth century due to shifts in social, moral and medical beliefs over the twentieth century.
6. The standard philosophical view is that transgenders are people who illustrate the distinction between sex and gender, between material and mental characteristics, demonstrating the indeterminacy of the heterosexual epistemic/ontological regime.
7. The standard sociological
view is that transgender is a social phenomenon rooted in the need to cope with
a particular set of cultural ideas about gender rooted in specific historical
and social conditions, such as the contemporary cultural norms that require
people to conceptualize human beings as two distinct sexes.
None of these seven views is adequate to explain the phenomena of transgender
human resources policies. Each view has its methodological problems, though the
adherents of each treat their paradigmatic explanations as gospel. This makes
discussion of transgender issues nerve-wracking, as each disciple expounds
theory as fact, treating any critical assessment as a sign of illiteracy or
bigotry. Because of these radical disjuncts, to the extent that a nascent field
of "trans studies" may be said to exist, it is more of a brawl than a
discipline, with neither a method nor a methodology.
11 Is discrimination an individual or
system phenomenon? "Discrimination" is a discourse that
says that certain personal characteristics merit the traditional penalties of
ostracism (social intolerance) or shunning (avoidance). These personal
characteristics include race, ethnicity, religion, politics, class, sex,
sexuality, age, and physical, cognitive, or emotional disabilities. For
example, black people who mix in white society may receive either stares or
minimized interaction, resulting in the subject’s perception of discrimination,
but an absence of perception on the part of the perpetrator. Discrimination is
a "hegemonic" (i.e., dominant) discourse, meaning that it seems to
those immersed in it as if it occurs without their consent or participation,
when in fact it occurs only because everyone consents to it and participates.
Because I said so, that's why. "Anti-discrimination" is a
counter-hegemonic discourse. This discourse says that social norms that impose
the traditional penalties of ostracism or shunning, based on personal identity
characteristics, are morally wrong. They are wrong because they hurt society by
creating an undercaste. Although this discourse in the
I find much the same problem with most trans studies as I do with my undergraduate students’ understanding of the world. Writers assert blithely that there is a continuum of gender between male and female, and, at the same time, that no one is truly male or female, as well as that there is no such thing as male and female. I find that I have to cure my students of the “it’s all good” philosophy, which they assert whenever I try to find out what they believe. Is our society a democracy with equal opportunity for all, or is it masses dominated by elites? Their reply? "Both." "No," I say. "The two are fundamentally opposed - you can't believe both." "It's all good," they say. I shake my head. This is a wonderful way to live only if you are young, gorgeous, healthy, abled, white, heterosexual and have enough money to afford $30,000 per annum in tuition (or a reasonable facsimile thereof) and totally unaware of your privilege. It is also a way to escape having to make any choices between competing understandings of the world, which enables the wrenching inequality that makes our world a living hell for so many people.
Transgender discrimination is largely a result of
institutional oppression, rather than individual prejudice. Individual
prejudice certainly exists, but it is not the primary cause of transgender
discrimination in the
12 What justifies sex segregation? We have different bathrooms for men and women, segregating those public spaces by sex. Unlike racial segregation, differences between the sexes are widely perceived as natural, not social, and therefore proper, neutral and unchanging. (I might point out that racial segregation was popularly viewed, not too long ago, as natural.) Institutional systems incorporate sex segregation, expressed as a series of ostensibly neutral and impartial rules. Transgenders, who do not conform to sexual stereotypes, are seen as denying natural facts, as unnatural. Their attempts to express their gender identity goes against institutional systems incorporating sex segregation. These attempts are therefore rejected, and transgenders are seen as not only different, but as incompatible with the system. Although individuals whose job it is to enforce the system may view transgender claims with sympathy, they are forbidden from accepting such claims by the system rules. Their “hands are tied.” The system ties their hands. System change takes a tremendous amount of effort and results in a great deal of inefficiency. Even such simple measures as changing forms, creating new bathroom rules and permitting documentation changes require immense amounts of time, money and effort. Inefficiency is the enemy of the system, and anyone arguing for inefficiency, such as transgenders, are enemies of the system. The anger and frustration of transgenders at being treated like enemies are seen as rebellion and as evidence of their mental instability and social dangerousness.
What then justifies segregation of the sexes? The social facts of difference require it. Women become pregnant, and men do not. (This seems like a genetic anatomical fact, but it is not. Men have prostates and women do not. So what? The significance of the difference is social in nature.) Most women (although not universally) have less aggressive and less violent personalities than most men. Most women (although not universally) are physically smaller and weaker than most men. Most rapes are perpetrated by men against women. Women are more likely to have more expressive personalities and men are more likely to have more instrumental personalities. Almost all men perform wage-earning work, but a much larger percentage of women do not. Most child care is performed by women. These and other social facts are used to justify segregation of the sexes. System controls are imposed by such means as birth certificates, passports, drivers’ licenses and social security accounts. The box you are determines the bathroom you must use, the college you may attend, the dormitory in which you must live, the kind of job you may have, the salary level you occupy, the leisure activities in which you may engage, the clothing you may wear, the person you may marry, the areas of the armed services in which you may serve. These constraints seem to be imposed by impartial rules, but the rules are made by a system that is partial and biased against difference. Imagine a rule that brown-eyed people must be segregated from blue-eyed people. It could be argued that the rule is impartial because it rests upon a genetic anatomical difference. The validity of such a rule, however, requires an assumption that genetic anatomical differences justify segregation. Such an assumption is unwarranted because genetic anatomical differences do not justify segregation, whether it be racial segregation or sex segregation.
How are "gender identity", "gender expression" and "gender characteristics" related? Does "sexual orientation" protection give any protection for transgenders? Is making surgery the criterion for legal sex change a good idea or a bad idea, and what surgery should be required? Is a surgery requirement constitutional? Are segregated sex bathrooms and locker rooms a good idea or a bad idea, and is sex segregation legally required? Is such a legal requirement constitutional?