|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by mcc99 on 11:37 AM June 6th, 2005 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
I wondered about posting this submission but then realized it is in fact an important matter to consider in its own way. Trangendered men are men nonetheless, as are cross-dressers. Women essentially cross-dress all the time in that they are "allowed" to wear "masculine-styled" clothing all the time, while men are effectively forbidden from doing the same thing if the clothing is deemed "feminine". The only current trend at all that is trying to compete is the attempt, in limited circles and venues such as Celtic festivals of one or another kind, to popularize the traditional Celtic kilt; however you will not, I guarantee it, be seeing men going to work in kilts any time soon.
If a woman shouldn't be discriminated against for wearing a pantsuit to work, why a man for wearing a dress? The matter of transgendered/cross-dressing people is what I would call a "fringe instance" when it comes to genderal/sex perceptions and rights issues in that it pushes the limits of definition itself by challenging it and the perception and judgments of people in society. The analog in the case of say, assisted suicide, would be to ask not if it is right to help someone who is merely very depressed kill him or herself, but what to do when you have a 95 YO in constant, untreatable pain who has made it very clar that they prefer death over a continued tormented existence?
My own take is simply this: err on the side of caution. Transgendered people are adults who should have the right to dress and live as they see fit provided they are not bringing measurable and obvious harm to others (and you would have to work hard to make that case), without fear of discrimination or retaliation. If one errs, to err on the side of liberty I feel is better than not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by mcc99 on 01:01 PM June 6th, 2005 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
BTW, just want to clarify re the first sentence in my last paragraph: to say I would "err on the side of caution", in case you may not have been able to tell, in my view means to hold favor *against* limiting a particular behavior. I believe in a (supposedly) free society that when there's a substantial question about whether it's better to limit or permit a behavior which is otherwise not substantially infringing on or endangering others, to allow that behavior is the right way to go. I think that's part and parcel of the concept of "liberty" in a republic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:57 PM June 6th, 2005 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
mcc99 - "I believe in a (supposedly) free society that when there's a substantial question about whether it's better to limit or permit a behavior which is otherwise not substantially infringing on or endangering others, to allow that behavior is the right way to go. I think that's part and parcel of the concept of "liberty" in a republic."
So you would agree that a man who makes love to a woman on the basis of consensual sex, since that endangered no one, should never be prosecuted for sexual assault, based on her morning-after regret?
You would accordingly also favor the presumption of joint custody?
You would of course endorse publishing the names of females accusing males of rape and sexual assault?
Just wondering where the boundaries might be?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by mcc99 on 09:08 PM June 6th, 2005 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
"So you would agree that a man who makes love to a woman on the basis of consensual sex, since that endangered no one, should never be prosecuted for sexual assault, based on her morning-after regret?"
Agree, 100%
"You would accordingly also favor the presumption of joint custody?"
Agree, 100%
"You would of course endorse publishing the names of females accusing males of rape and sexual assault? "
Agree, 100%
Equality of treatment is the point here. In each case, the presumption of equal interests and/or innocence should be given to all parties. The problem these days is that such is not the case when men and women clash in terms of their interests - men usually get the shaft while women get the bennies.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
Anonymous writes: "There's a bill being introduced before Congress -- the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2005 -- that seeks to provide civil rights protections for persons of any and all actual and/or perceived genders. Confused? N.O.W. "Applauds Groundbreaking Effort to Pass Gender-Inclusive Legislation." At --