|
LadyEllen -> RE: How far will Dems go on transgender rights? (10/5/2007 4:11:39 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ChicagoSwitchMal
I know I'm going to take some heat for this but I'm not sure what I think about this. I'm not sure I want a TS or TG male to female in a girls locker room working as a high school coach for example. To me that's still a man in a girls locker room. If I were female I don't think I want a TS or TG male to be able to walk into the women's bathroom at work because they had a dress on. To me that still a man in a woman's washroom.
The part of the bill that was dropped said "employers could not discriminate against workers on the basis of "gender identity” which his bill defined as “the gender-related identity, appearance, or mannerisms or other gender-related characteristics of an individual, with or without regard to the individual's designated sex at birth.” For most jobs I'm okay with this protection. But I do worry about jobs related to children especially. Female to male TS or TG as a girl scout leader? Female to male TS or TG as a football coach? Not that females can't teach football but coachs are more than that. They are male roll models. How can a TS/TG do that?
I'm sorry I just don't get it. Okay, now let the flaming begin. [sm=boxer.gif]
no flames - but I dont think you get it!
for one, these ideas are very akin to the notion that gay men are paedophiles by nature - when its pretty much established that the two conditions have no relationship; one might be gay and a paedophile, but being gay does not indicate one is also a paedophile. In fact, it seems that paedophiles are representative of the population in general - most are heterosexuals. Most victims are family members or the children of close friends.
for two; we're talking here about people who are on treatments to change their secondary sexual characteristics as a minimum - lets be clear here, hormonal treatment and androgen suppressants have a marked effect on sexual interest, arousal and performance - both are diminished to the point of not being a factor to be concerned over. Chemical castration is exactly what it says on the packet. Its therefore very, very unlikely that anyone on such treatments is going to be interested in or capable of any form of sexual offence against women in a washroom or girls in a school setting. And on the "football coach" side - I cant imagine many like me who'd either be interested in or capable of providing such coaching!
Now as for the wording of the Bill - I agree to be honest; its very poorly worded in the excerpt you quote. Nice motivation, but poor. And the reason its poor, is that it falls into the trap of allowing any man who chooses to wear a dress to be regarded as a female - which I agree does open the possibilities of the scenarios you mentioned.
My view is that this Bill needs to be postponed. The first Bill which is required to my mind, is something along the lines of our UK Gender Recognition Act. Under this, one can obtain a full nullification of one's assigned gender, all the way back to birth, and new assignment in the new gender. To obtain this however, one must show that one meets certain criteria which confirm one's change is permanent - not necessarily SRS but thats an automatic "in".
In addition to this though, it also requires far more stringent control over diagnoses and treatments, because to be honest if one has the money it matters not whether one is a fantasist/ fetishist or the real deal - one can get what one wants. The danger with this of course, is that the real deal people can have to go without, lacking funds - and just as bad, that the fantasists can have what they want if they have the money. In each of these groups are generally found the sources for the high suicide rate in the whole transsexual category. But the worst of it is, in my opinion, that treatments such as I've mentioned above, undertaken by fantasists and fetishists can be undone by the likes of viagra - rendering what was a sexual neutrality back into male potency - I've seen this on several occasions now. To me it indicates only one thing - a man who likes dressing like a woman, not a man who should be a woman - and this of course brings up the very problems you mentioned. So really, its a case of getting the gate-keeping sorted out first, as to who such a Bill would apply to.
Its simple, all in all - if you were born male, like to dress up as a woman and love your penis, youre a crossdresser - and there's nothing wrong with that, but you need to understand youre a guy. If you were born male, need to dress up as a woman in order to be yourself and be treated for who you are because the distress of your original state is too much and this solves that distress, and are at best indifferent to your penis, youre likely a transsexual.
E
|
|
|
|
