There are also the used sanitary products in addition to the various bodily wastes seen in men’s rooms. I don’t think the sofas and armchairs really make ladies’ rooms that much better.
Every time I get bummed about the SDMB, I read one of these threads where Una Persson posts on gender issues, and I think, ‘yeah, this is good, this is a good thing, ignorance can be fought’. Thanks. You’re kinda my heroine.
I think the ‘zeitgeist’ comment made above is more ‘suddenly I keep hearing about gender identity and I never did before, and I’m making assumptions about what I’m hearing’.
We can chip in to get the OP a armchair, if that will help end answer his concerns.
I’m a white male business owner wanting to go for a government contract that gives preference to non-white-male-owned businesses, because I forgot to mention I’m a white male asshole business owner. I have two choices:
- Go through a long legal process to have my gender changed; or
- Hire a woman to be the nominal business owner.
Which of these do you think is likeliest?
Heck, with the advent of GPS, the women-only privilege of being able to ask for directions without stigma has ceased to be an advantage, so I don’t know what the OP is on about, either.
Personally, I only see this being a big deal to people who insist on making it a big deal. I’m not disturbed that society-imposed gender distinctions have faded and will continue to do so.
I’m honestly curious how this became a theme in right-wing thought. I mean, honestly, I cannot think of a single instance which screams “I AM NOT CHECKING MY PRIVILEGE” any louder. Yes, when it comes to accommodating a minority group which suffers and has suffered the most extreme discrimination in recent history (post-WWII), the thing we have to worry the most about is men taking advantage of this to gain the myriad of advantages women have in society.
…I just can’t add anything to that. It’s perfect.
We need a word for that! tri-sistent !
You know who doesn’t get to choose its gender? The people who don’t identify themselves with any gender at all, and would choose to be genderless. What rights do they have?
I’ve heard this point being made before, as far back as the mid-1970’s, when gender surgery was an all-new and still experimental (and very controversial) surgery, being pioneered at Stanford. It was pointed out that it was now possible and permissible (sort-of, at the time) to choose whether one would be male or female, but it was not permissible to choose to have no gender at all.
What was (and is) the attitude behind this? It sounds like: Having gender – any gender – is a curse that every human must endure, and nobody should get an easy out. :dubious:
ETA: Art Hoppe, late humor columnist for the San Francisco Chronicle, did a column headed “The Operation” in which an unhappy family man, convinced that he had been born into the wrong body, went to Stanford for The Operation, and came home as a gorgeous long-silky-haired Golden Retriever.
I am still waiting to hear about the special welfare, divorce laws and child custody benefits I’m entitled to.
You’re torn? The OP is pretty trans-parent, really.
These are your own words. You are describing yourself as having a sexual identity from birth until the present moment, and then changing that identity instantaneously, without medical or psychological cause. Sorry, it doesn’t work that way.
For what it’s worth, I’m okay with addressing the OP as “Miss” from now on.
Madam.
I rank this with about the same level of seriousness as the argument that gay people could always get married if they wanted medical benefits; they just had to find somebody of the opposite sex to marry. Problem solved!
Or the whole “We can’t have gay marriage because straight people will marry their roommates!” thing. Is that one still about to destroy society?
Some surprisingly conservative figures have come out in support of recognizing and treating transexuality, but usually under the assumption that the trans person will fully adopt the traditional gender roles associated with their destination sex. And I mean really surprising: Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa decreeing that transexuality was a legitimate medical condition, and it was the duty of good Muslims to help people suffering from it get treatment.
In the West, a similar attitude was pretty common among the medical profession. It was generally required that a person undergoing SRS identify as a heterosexual. If you were, say, a female-to-male transsexual who was attracted to men, you would be rejected for treatment. I can’t find it now, but I recently read a quote from someone involved in the John Hopkins clinic in the late '60s, defending SRS as a means of eliminating homosexuality.
In that atmosphere, I’m not surprised that the idea of being non-gendered or deliberate gender ambiguity would not be well received.
Even the great Harry Benjamin often denied hormones to lesbian transwomen and gay transmen, because he felt they were really just gays or lesbians with milder gender issues that could work themselves out. Rene Richards claims in her first autobiography to have been refused treatment by Benjamin because she was lesbian.
My boyfriend has trouble saying Benjamin’s name without spitting.
He was a powerful net positive for transpeople however. I put it like this: even Jefferson had slaves.
The documentary Be Like the Others covers this in an eye-opening way.