Effects of medicalization on case outcomes in transgender employment discrimination court decisions.

Abstract

Some attorneys and legal scholars argue that medicalizing transgender plaintiffs (i.e., introducing plaintiff diagnoses and/or medical procedures) in discrimination cases will enhance favorable plaintiff outcomes. Research and theory linking biological essentialism (i.e., believing social groups reflect biologically-rooted, stable categories) to prejudice, however, suggests that medicalizing transgender plaintiffs might not help them win cases and might instead backfire and harm their case outcomes. To test these competing hypotheses, we coded all published cases involving alleged transgender discrimination (N=124) from 1974 to 2021. Importantly, we addressed limitations of existing research that narrowly defined transgender plaintiff medicalization exclusively via diagnosis by documenting various other forms of medicalization beyond diagnosis. Contrary to legal scholars' claims and attorney intuitions, medicalization did not predict favorable outcomes for transgender plaintiffs. In fact, various forms of medicalization beyond diagnosis predicted negative plaintiff case outcomes. We discuss the implications of this research for informing scientific theory and legal practice.