Wash. Times Launches Attack On Transgender People
April 05, 2011 7:28 am ET by Media Matters staff
In an April 4 editorial, The Washington Times attacked transgender people seeking the ability to change the gender listed on their birth certificates, writing: "It's fair to ask where all of this is heading. Could Jocelyn Wildenstein -- famously nicknamed 'Catwoman' for the feline appearance she achieved through multiple plastic surgeries -- decide after years of struggling with her identity that she is actually a cat?" The Times went on to further question the sanity of transgender people, suggesting that "perhaps these people are just messed up."
From the Times editorial:
Individuals who claim they're "transgender" are suing the New York City Health Department over what they say is discrimination. These people are upset because the city won't change the sex listed on their birth certificates unless they've had elaborate surgery to refashion their private parts and received subsequent psychiatric evaluations attesting to the permanence of their supposed "transition" to the opposite gender.
[...]
Practically speaking, none of the scientific (or pseudo-scientific) mumbo-jumbo matters too much, however, because self-identified transgenders and their allies are finding success for their radical agenda by merely asserting that it's a medical condition and going forward with counseling for "transition" (purportedly becoming the opposite gender) and radical surgery to "correct" their organs and sex characteristics. There is no more debate over the possibility that perhaps these people are just messed up.
[...]
It's fair to ask where all of this is heading. Could Jocelyn Wildenstein - famously nicknamed "Catwoman" for the feline appearance she achieved through multiple plastic surgeries - decide after years of struggling with her identity that she is actually a cat? With the precedents set by these new policies, all she would need to do to secure her new cat identity is find a doctor to certify that she was undergoing "appropriate clinical treatment" to secure the right to demand that her official government documents be altered to reflect who she has become. She's already had the surgeries.
The old saying about giving an inch and losing a mile comes to mind. As Sam Berkley, born Samantha, complained in a press conference about the lawsuit, "I don't feel comfortable with the government deciding whether I'm a man or not." Strike "man" and replace with "human" or "sane" and there's not much of a difference. We must then accommodate all departures from cultural norms - which becomes easier as the groups in opposition to the norms successfully erode them to suit their own ideas of how the world should be. This becomes even more tragic - dangerous, even - if we're accommodating mental illness in the name of misplaced sensitivity, inclusiveness or political correctness.
Sheesh.
How does giving transgenders that inch lose you a mile?
Who is injured if a person wants to change the sex on their birth certificate?
What logical, rational, or otherwise fact-based reason is there to stop them from doing it?
I am much more interested in your last question regarding facts and logic. What logic will the keepers of birth records use to respond to the requests for changes?
It is a fact that I was born female--at least the medical staff at the hospital reported that I appeared to be female--so the bureau of records used that as fact. If I start living my life as a male, does that change the "fact" that I was born female? Should my birth certificate be changed to show I was born male? That is not really factual under the standard used by the hospital and the state in which I was born. Should my new gender be recorded with an addendum?
I'm interested in what the bureaucrats will decide.
Hermaphrodites are the most visible examples of the gender continuum, but there are other aspects to consider. For the vast majority of us, our apparent gender identities closely match what we feel is our genders. However, for that minority where they don't match, we shouldn't be so quick to label them "sickos," "deviant," or "not right in the head." They are simply being true to their biology and shouldn't be faulted for it.
No, it's not fair at all.
I say you should stick to the way nature intended you to be. You shouldn't just cut your penis open and try to turn it into a vagina just because you feel "like a woman trapped in a man's body". I have tolerance for those who feel that way, but I just find the whole idea stupid. I know people will make me out to be the biggest a-hole in the world for saying that, but that's just how I see it, I'm sorry.
OK, you're a bit of an a-hole, but you could be worse. Essentially, there's a lot of things you don't understand, which isn't terrible in and of itself, but you make a lot of judgments without understanding. And to say "I'm tolerant, but that's stupid" is a contradiction. Insulting someone isn't showing tolerance.
A transgendered person doesn't just change sex because they feel they "would be happier that way," but rather because, to use the language you did, nature intended them to be driven to change. Whether you call the driving force that programs our minds with basic instinctive drives God, Nature, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, this isn't terribly different from what Christian homosexuals understand - God made them gay. Since you said Nature, I'll stick with that. Nature generated transgendered people, people with a psychological gender that differs from their physical gender. Are you wondering, "Why?" in the evolutionary psychology sense? Who knows, who cares, it exists.
Making the comparison of bleaching skin is an awful lot like the "cat" comparison that the Times' article made. To my knowledge, being born with the internal sense of identity corresponding with one race while being physically born into the other does not exist in any statistically significant percent of the population, but to answer your question, hell, if someone actually felt that way, I'd tell them to go ahead and bleach, and go where Nature drives them to go as long as they're not hurting anyone else. And are they? Really? Hell, if someone actually did want to be legally recognized as a cat, would that really hurt anyone? Finally, if you're getting your philosophical views from South Park, you really need to look elsewhere, my friend. South Park is funny, very funny, but it is not meant to be your guide to life.
And to make one small correction to an otherwise very nice post by "nothingtoseehere", transgendered people, by and large, are not confused. They know precisely what they are, and since they at the very least have had to be very observant and conscious of gender through their entire lives, and in many cases have in fact lived in both gender roles, they understand gender very well - better, I'd say, than the rest of the world.
Which is why what is really impressive - beyond impressive, downright amazing - is that if you look for them now, you'll find stories of kids less than 10 years old who have gotten up the courage to tell their parents what they are, and who have started transition that young. I like to think that says something about the way the world is changing, despite what some people would have us believe. I couldn't agree more that figuring out what action to take, then having the balls (she said, aware of the irony) to follow it through, is no small task, which makes it really inspiring when it's being done by such small people. :)
Lots of people who you would undoubtedly call women are born without a uterus or have never had a period or cannot get pregnant.
Please educate yourself on the issue before spewing more nonsense.
Learn the difference between sex and gender.
Trans people pursue medical transition for relief from gender dysphoria, not for the "ultimate goal of being happy." Often times they are severely depressed, suicidal, or abusing substances because of the discomfort of living as the wrong gender. Trans medicine is supported internationally by researchers and health professionals as the only effective treatment for gender dysphoria.
Your natural argument is a failure because by your standards anything manipulated by humans is no longer natural, yet virtually all of modern life is impossible with human manipulation including the very computer you used to comment here.
As far as your attitudes about being happy, if a black man wants to be white what is wrong with that? If it makes them happy, good grief why not??
You see, that was exactly what I was talking about in my original post-that whole philosophy, "if it makes you feel happy, then do it", is simply wrong. What if drinking alcohol makes me happy? Or using crystal meth? I'm not comparing alcohol and drugs to bleaching your skin, I'm simply using those two examples to make my point, which is that you shouldn't just do whatever you want if it makes you happy in life. There has to be limits. Otherwise, you're going to have serious problems.
And as for comparing the use of computers to mutilating your genitals just because you feel you're the wrong gender, that's just insane, not to mention stupid.
Or, if you can't do it without calling people insane, stupid, or ridiculous, then just go have your temper tantrum in a corner somewhere.
I believe it's much better for people to weigh the costs and risks to the benefits for themselves. As far as quality (and even quantity) of life is concerned, the benefits of trans medicine are certainly worth the risks and costs for these who need it. This is confirmed by virtually everybody, trans people themselves, researches, doctors, mental health professionals, etc.
You recommend against trans medicine, and the best you can come up with is simply labeling is 'mutilation' and that it's 'not natural.'
You missed the boat on my response about computers not being natural. I was merely offering a counter-argument to 'it's not natural' as a reason for opposing trans medicine. I was NOT comparing using a computer to 'mutilating your genitals.'