Transgender advocates have recently turned to disability law to obtain discrimination protections lacking elsewhere. Championing the American Psychological Association’s decision to substitute “gender dysphoria” for “gender identity disorder,”1 they argue that using disability law to combat gender identity discrimination will not pathologize transgender people. Due to this claim, leading advocates conclude that “the overwhelming consensus among transgender rights advocates is strongly in favor of Americans with Disabilities Act coverage of gender dysphoria.”2 While this Article sympathizes with the pragmatic need to address gender identity discrimination, it questions the disability law approach. Despite the transformative potential of the social model of disability, current United States disability discrimination law requires plaintiffs to cooperate with the medicalization of gender dysphoria. It also requires them to characterize gender dysphoria as inherently negative. Disability law’s expressly anti-trans provisions further stigmatize transgender plaintiffs by conditioning discrimination coverage on a showing that gender dysphoria has a physical etiology. This exercise is intrusive, potentially costly, and reflects an assimilationist bias eager to blame people for their gender nonconformance. Even disability law’s innovative “regarded as disabled” coverage falls short of advocates’ expectations.3 Its exclusive focus on discriminators’ beliefs related to medical impairments obscures discriminators’ far more relevant beliefs about gender variation and nonconformance. * Professor of Law and Director of Faculty Research and Development, University of Dayton School of Law. Special thanks to Bradley Areheart for invaluable comments. 1 Kevin Barry & Jennifer Levi, Blatt v. Cabela’s Retail, Inc. and a New Path for Transgender Rights, 127 YALE L.J. F. 373, 393 (2017) [hereinafter A New Path].

中文翻译：

---

残疾法和性别认同歧视

跨性别倡导者最近转向残疾法以获得其他地方缺乏的歧视保护。他们支持美国心理学会决定用“性别不安”代替“性别认同障碍”1，他们认为使用残疾法来打击性别认同歧视不会使跨性别者病态。由于这一说法，主要倡导者得出结论，“跨性别权利倡导者的压倒性共识强烈支持美国残疾人法案对性别不安的报道。”2 虽然本文赞同解决性别认同歧视的务实需要，但它质疑残疾法方法。尽管残疾社会模式具有变革潜力，现行的美国残疾歧视法要求原告配合治疗性别焦虑症。它还要求他们将性别不安定性为本质上是消极的。残疾法明确的反跨性别条款进一步污名化跨性别原告，将歧视报道限定在性别不安具有生理病因的证据上。这种做法是侵入性的，可能代价高昂，并且反映了一种渴望将人们的性别不一致归咎于同化主义的偏见。即使是残疾法创新的“被视为残疾人”的覆盖范围也达不到倡导者的期望。3 它对歧视者与医疗损伤相关的信念的专门关注掩盖了歧视者关于性别差异和不符合的更相关的信念。* 代顿大学法学院法学教授兼学院研究与发展主任。特别感谢 Bradley Areheart 的宝贵意见。1 Kevin Barry 和 Jennifer Levi，Blatt 诉 Cabela's Retail, Inc. and a New Path for Transgender Rights, 127 YALE LJF 373, 393 (2017) [以下简称 A New Path]。