First saw the story on a mailing list I’m on, and my first move was to IM a law student friend of mine and ask how, exactly, someone could retroactively withdraw consent thus turning perfectly reasonable sex acts into “sexual assault” after the fact. Nevermind the gender issues which send me into seven kinds of orbit, two retrograde.
Eve writes,
In a completely non-serious manner not threatening to anyone’s actual physical safety, may I invite you to come explain in detail to my affectionate yet annoying biological-sex-determines-gender partner, as loudly and for as long as you wish, exactly WHY our differently-born sisters may not immediately “come out” to every single guy they wish to share an ice cream sundae or a movie with? When you get hoarse, I will make you tea with lemon and serve it to you to sip while I tickle him until he loses control of his bodily functions and/or begs for mercy. Then (okay, he’ll beg first, but it’ll be a near thing, I know) we’ll paint his toenails. Or you can yell at him some more, or I’ll take a turn.
I’m not normally a toenail-painting kind of person. But I’ve admired your style from afar, Gracious Lady, and while this whole story pisses me off, I know it’s got to make you seventy-eleven times madder. So, I’ll make the sacrifice and sleep with Mr. Blushing Rose Pink, if it helps in the least little way.
Corrvin
who couldn’t think of any good names for nail paint color, alas
Mmmmm . . . So I could apply for a job at Ms., and when they turn me down, sue them for discrimination? Hmmm . . . Why, I could make . . . tens of dollars on a lawsuit like that!
Corvin, I can’t figure out if your question is why I should instantly out myself to everyone I meet, or why I shouldn’t?
I apologize for my inspecificity, especially because inspecificity is such a fun word to type. My position in the unpublicized chez Corrvin debates was that each person chooses their own time to disclose certain topics, including “I think gender is more than what one keeps in one’s boxers, how about you? And since we’ve known each other so long, let’s take the pizza over to my place,” followed by “the contents of my boxers and the contents of your boxers” For me personally, as long as both of the preceding come before “if those are your boxers on the floor, then where are mine?” it’s all good. However, I’m into that whole relationship thing… I could see a case where if it was a one-time chance to, say, swap spit with a total hottie, someone might not feel the in-depth convo to be warranted.
My debate partner and bed-hog believes, however, that statements such as “Hi, my name is Pamela, and are you okay that I’m transgendered? Because if you’re not, I’ll go away, since you have a right to be uncomfortable” are more acceptable.
I’m probably vastly misquoting him. I’m still more than moderately miffed. Liberally miffed? Conservatively miffed? Well, fundamentally miffed.
Well, that is one of the many reasons I do not date anymore (that, and that I am a middle-aged dowager and the men are not exactly lined up at my door anymore). Of course, I think one’s pertinent history (what I refer to as Baby’s Little Secret) should be revealed before a relationship gets too serious: as should anything your Special Someone should know (religious affiliation, past marriages, jail time, drug addictions, HIV status, SUV status, pick your choice).
But am I supposed to reveal my entire medical history to every man I meet on the subway? Have dinner with? Have two or three dinners with? Before or after that first kiss goodnight, or that first, ummm, “night?” Opinions differ, and people have wound up chopped into little pieces for making the wrong choice. Or sued for “sexual assault, defamation, personal injury and breach of contract.”
TaxGuy, lawyers are obliged not to represent their clients in pursuing odious goals that are not supported by law. These lawyers know (or should know) that their claims are without basis (especially the “sexual assault” ones) and should never have carried forward claims based on such ridiculous interpretations of the law.