November 14, 2006

• (Oh, and this is a few days old, but what with the election and then me getting the mother of all headcolds I saved it up!)
• I don't care who fucks whom. I really don't. And I don't care how they do it. And I don't care who people choose to live with. And I don't care who people marry. But you want to change your gender on your birth certificate? Really? Are you sure you were not really meant to be a hamster and you should not be classified as a human anymore? Do you think maybe you were meant to be born with only one arm? Or three? "I know that I am of average intelligence, but I feel like I was born a genius. Therefore, I demand to be a member of Mensa." "I know I am caucasian, but I really feel like I was meant to be Pakistani. Therefore, I need my census data changed to make me Pakistani." Idiotic.
• It will make prison life more interesting.
• New York City?!
• You know *warning Japan anecdote* we aren't so hung up about the toilet thing here. Maybe it's an issue of space - but lots of places have unisex toilets. When push comes to shove does it matter what gender you are when poo and wee is involved?
• Cooties.
• Do you think maybe you were meant to be born with only one arm? Well, there are pEople that feel that need.
• Down, CapsLock, DOWN!
• "I know I am caucasian, but I really feel like I was meant to be Pakistani. Therefore, I need my census data changed to make me Pakistani." It's possible to be a Caucasian, if you mean somebody with pale skin and European features, and be a Pakistani national, isn't it? It's interesting, though, isn't it, that good sense tends to stop right the Hell where our own personal ick factors kick in, or if you'd rather our own personal incomprehension factors. A member of the Religious Right doesn't understand why somebody claims to be born gay, when it's clear as day that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice. Somebody else doesn't understand why you'd claim to be a woman if you were born with a penis. It can't possibly be ignorance on their part, ergo it must be a failing on the part of the other party.
• does it matter what gender you are when poo and wee is involved? First of all, girls are icky. Duh. Secondly, there's enough awkwardness in society without changing the bathroom rules. This would deserve some kind of national initiative with prime-time star-studded "Night of the Celebrity Unisex Pee" specials or something. Like New Math.
• Surely Ally MacBeal was the star-studded night of the celebrity unisex pee, every week?
• I don't know... I always figured if you want to be a girl, be a girl. If you want to be a boy, be a boy. Just be willing to take on all of the cultural baggage that goes along with it. Also, we use unisex bathrooms at home, usually. I don't see the issue there. There's always the argument that sexual predators will lurk in the bathroom ready to attack women, but I doubt that the "women" sign on the door is really going to stop them anyway.
• But you want to change your gender on your birth certificate? Really? Are you sure you were not really meant to be a hamster and you should not be classified as a human anymore? . Think about it.
• I think that pretty much covers it. The set of sex offenders, the set of people who feel so strongly about their gender orientation that they want to have it officially altered and the set of people who go into women's bathrooms interact in complex ways. At Michfest, the argument is sometimes advanced (in support of the exclusion of people who identify as women but have penises, or indeed _had_ penises, but that's harder to prove) that, although the set of people who feel strongly enough about their gender orientation to seek to alter it and the set of sex offenders were pretty distinct, the presence on the festival lands of a sexy turnip, whoever it was attached too, would be a symbolic violation of womyn's space. That dog might must hunt with the granola crew, but at 11:30 in the Rat and Ferret, it's frankly a toss-up whether the average punter will use the gents, the ladies or the slot in the top of the plastic guide dog's head.
• Tell you what: let's have two entries on your birth certificate: 'genetic sex' and 'professed sex' (maybe just 'sex' and 'gender'). Then again, what do you say to a woman who doesn't want people with penises in the women's toilet (or joining her confidential women's support group)?
• People who have toilet phobia would probably have an even tougher problem with unisex toilets. If you have trouble letting go now, think how having a person in the next stall who is differently gendered would affect you.
• Surely only really *long* penises would get in the toilet? /NorthAmerican
• OK, I think we've found our level now. ;)
• Honestly! 'twas just a toilet/bathroom dichotomy comment, is all. I used to be concerned for an Irish friend when she claimed to be "in the toilet" because here that means in the actual porcelain device.
• And to try backpedalling: I can see why this would make many women uncomfortable. Rapists tend to be people who have penises , and bathrooms/toilets can be very secluded places, so there could be a definite feeling of threat. At the same time, people who behave violently towards transgendered folks are statistically-speaking likely to use the gent's room, so one can understand finding the ladies' loo more safe if one were to appear in any way 'different'.
• MonkeyFilter: When push comes to shove does it matter what gender you are when poo and wee is involved? push comes to shove? *head asplodes from bad pun On multi-holers, biologically females restricted to female terlets only--unless they want to take their chances in the gents. Start building more one-holers--then just shut the door. I don't give a tinkle what you do, as long as there are more lil'girlz rooms in public places so we don't have to wait so blessed long.
• "I know that I am of average intelligence, but I feel like I was born a genius. Therefore, I demand to be a member of Mensa." I think that's the whole point of Mensa, tbh. It's for people who really really want to be smart and to be considered smart, but who really are not that exceptional. Wolof's point is important. At birth, definition of genetic sex can be somewhat of a guess.
• At birth, definition of genetic sex can be somewhat of a guess. Eh?
• But we're not really talking about intersex here, are we?
• Well, it's not like you can do it on a whim, is it? You have to have, like, doctor's notes and shit. And I think this does involve people with intersex conditions, as there are cases where a gender assignment is made for them that later turns out to have been the wrong one. And it seems like most transgendered folks go through enough agony for their identity, even with questions of surgery aside. (Also, from what little I've read on the subject, a lot of transgendered folks use the bathroom of their desination gender rather than their source gender, anyway. They just do everything in the stall so nobody notices.) And in a couple of years, they can even get womb transplants! That joke from The Life of Brian about gestating the fetus in a box will fall totally flat to future generations!
• I think this does involve people with intersex conditions Granted, but I think (I'd like to think) the intersex cases are uncontroversial. The controversial ones are where someone with perfectly normal sexual development wants to switch.
• I think that somebody who wants to change the gender on their birth certificate might not be said to have entirely normal sexual development. Do you mean "unambiguously masculine or feminine genital development"?
• I feel like I am really a fourteen year old and that I was born at the wrong time. Therefore, I would like my birth certificate changed to reflect that fact. Pardon me, now, while I go have sex with this thirteen year old.
• Errr... I wonder, are the same people conflating this with changing unrelated criteria (age, race, etc..) the same ones who rail against gay marriage because it may lead to, oh, interspecies marriage? Cuz ya know it makes about as much (non)sense. And comparing it to statuatory rape is, well, pretty slimy of ya, bernockle... I only personally know one post-op transgendered person, and she's a very successful swimsuit model. Ya might be surprised...
• Also, I would be remiss if I didn't point out that girls don't poop.
• I suppose I'm talking morphology, not behaviour, MH: still, I'll see your pedantic correction and raise you an accusation of question-begging. On your definition, no-one can be said to have had a normal sexual development until they're dead - because there's always the possibility of some deviant behaviour emerging.
• Did Bernockle just draw a comparison between transgendered people wanting to be recognised officially as belonging to the the gender they identify and represent as and people wanting to have sex with children? I think he did. Golly. Plegmund - you and I appear to have different ideas of what constitutes pedantry. However, in this case I don't really see what the problem is with your begged question. I don't really know what characterises "normal" sexual development, but if it includes an absolute conviction throughout one's entire life, from cradle to grave, that one is happy to identify with the gender to which one was assigned by a doctor looking at your genitalia shortly after your birth, then yes, absolutely, nobody can be said to have had a "normal" sexual development until the case can be examined post mortem. Personally, I would say that this was a pretty unprofitable criterion, which is why I did not advance it in the first place - I was merely trying to understand the argument you were advancing.
• Bernockle just drew a comparison between altering information that is placed on your birth certificate based on scientific observation (what kind of genitalia you appear to have) because you later are uncomfortable with that observation and altering information that is placed on your birth certificate based on scientific observation (what the date is when you were born) because you later are uncomfortable with that observation. Seems like a fair comparison.
• It is useful to tally up how many people are born with various combinations of genitalia. It has tremendous scientific value. To go back and change that informations based on actions or opinions that occur years later is not quite being scientifically accurate. People can go and have their gender changed and have their sex officially changed however that is kept track of (driver's license, irs, etc.). But to go back and change a birth certificate is to change an official record to something that is not true.
• And the undesirability of a tiny number of people changing the gender on their birth certificate's impact on demographic data is equivalent to the undesirability of statutory rape? What is it when people who have painted themselves into a corner want to change the record so they aren't painted into a corner?
• No offence intended, MH -'pedantic' isn't really pejorative in my eyes.
• None taken, Plegmund - I was just concerned that you might think I was wasting your time, which I hoped I wasn't, and hoped you didn't think that I was, if you see what I mean. What constitutes a normal sexual development is a very interesting and complex question, certainly, and I was being jocular in tone if not entirely in content with my original comment, which could have come across as flippancy. Meanwhile, I've been thinking about this a bit more, and Bernockle's curve is actually quite an interesting, high-speed version of the ick response. Something is proposed that hits your ick reponse. Lets say civil partnerships for t3h ghey. First step is to portray it as ridiculous. Why, this would be like letting a man marry a horse. This would be like letting people identify as hamsters. Now, if it turns out that there isn't actually a quorum of people who will join you in laughing the idea out of court - if some people say that, actually, they've been wondering about whether gay marriage is such a bad idea - you move on to equating it with some morally awful thing. For example, marriage for gay men is a step closer to legalising bestiality. Sex with children is always a good one on this - if you can somehow associate the process with one that ends up with children being molested, even if it's a bit of a reach, you might get some momentum going. However, if that doesn't work, you might have to reach into the grab-bag for a bit of science - the psephology stage of the process. At this point, you might have to give some ground. So, for gender realignment, skip entirely anything you said that did not very specifically refer to the collation of data based on birth certificates. Apparently, it's not "idiotic" at all to change one's gender at the IRS or on one's driving license, but only, purely, on one's birth certificate - let's not worry about all that stuff about hamsters and paedophiles, eh? This is about the science. A casual observer might point out that the real threat to the integrity of the data on the birth certificate is women getting married and changing their names - this immediately makes the data on their birth certificate relating to their surnames a mockery, and makes it impossible to determine from the number of people whose birth certificates identify them as called Smith just how many people there are called Smith. One might, further, question the logic of having one set of official documents identify somebody as belonging one gender, and another set another. I can't work out a way to get to sex with children from there, but give me time - perhaps something about hiding from the authorities? However, it's relatively rare that people come up against an ick border on women who have married deciding to change their surname to that of their husband. So, transsexuals. In a few years' time, we'll be pushing the envelope somewhere else, and the boundaries of the ick factor will have changed again, and people will be saying "I don't care who fucks whom, or how they do it, or who marries whom, or what gender they were identified as at birth, but Going out with genetically engineered intelligent protein cultures? That's just ridiculous/immoral/scientifically inadvisable. Change partners, dance.
• Oh, forgot to mention. For public health studies, people who have changed their gender would be counted according to their sex at birth. From the linked article. Now this is interesting, because it suggested that one can alter the gender on someone's birth certificate without altering the scientific data available. Which means that they already are basically running Plegmund's principle of having a birth (or provisional) sex, and a current (or official) sex, which starts off the same as your birth (or provisional) sex, and continues to be so until you ask specifically to change it - it's just that your current sex is the only thing that actually appears physically on your birth certificate. Arguably, this does not go far enough, as it means that one could theoretically probably identify somebody's birth gender as other than their current gender by cross-referencing this data, but I'd see that as a case of ability massively outstripping tactical sense, as the same information could be found far more easily through human intelligence, as a rule. As such, this seems an acceptable compromise, and I'd be interested to know if it resolved the practical objections raised by Bernockle, above.
• In North Carolina there is a crime called Assault on a Female. It is a Class A1 misdemeanor,punishable by up to 150 days in prison, and it counts as a point on someone's record for sentencing purposes if that person is later convicted of a felony. To commit this offense, one must be a male over the age of 18 and the victim must be a female. There is also a crime called Simple Assault. It is a Class 2 misdemeanor, punishable by up to 60 days in prison, and it does not count as a point on someone's record for sentencing purposes if that person is later convicted of a felony. To commit this offense, the defendant and the victim can be any gender. Changing the gender on a birth certificate can affect what crime a person is guilty of and it can affect whether a person is guilty of a crime at all.
• I don't see how this affects recipients of gender reassignment more than people who have stuck with their original gender. Gender is not "non" until realigned.
• Other stoopid North Carolina laws: - It's against the law to sing off key. - Elephants may not be used to plow cotton fields. - While having sex, you must stay in the missionary position and have the shades pulled. - All couples staying overnight in a hotel must have a room with double beds that are at least two feet apart. Making love in the space between the beds is strictly forbidden. - Oral sex is considered a crime against nature. . . . Look, there are 3 basic aspects to gender identity: physical manifestation (cock or coochie), sexual partner preference, and self-identification. (Gender identity is such an incredibly important aspect of personal psychology that people even try to control other people's gender identity.) When the first (physical) and the last (identification) don't match, it is literally possible to be a woman trapped in a man's body. Think for yourself how messed up that would be, and be happy you don't have that dilemma. I wouldn't wish it on anyone. I, for one, am quite happy with my weiner and would be quite aghast if it were to be turned inside out. I assume you feel the same way. About my weiner. (I kid!!!!) But if Henry needs to be Henrietta to have a happy life, then rock on. And if Henrietta needs to update her own personal documentation to feel like a complete person, to reverse the horrible mistake that biology has wraught upon them, then who are we to say she can't? The "damage" to other people (let's be honest, it's mostly "ick factor" -- good posts, Monkey Haus) is trivial compared to the positive effect it'll have in that person's life. I saw a bumper sticker on a pickup truck this morning, surrounded by pro-GOP stickers: "Harm no one. Do what ye will." Sounds right to me.
• I wonder why we insist on clinging to legal definitions of gender at all, to be honest. I've always been perfectly happy as a girl, but I can see why some people are not happy in their birth gender. This is not a one-size-fits-all kind of world, and I'm more than willing to admit that what works for me can't work for someone else. Why would I force what works for me on them -- especially since (unlike statutory rape) this decision isn't hurting anyone? It can be confusing when someone you know all of the sudden changes their gender, but, you know, besides a few pronoun shifts on your part where's the effort or pain?
• If someone is messed up enough to change his official gender simply to avoid an extra 90 days in the hoosegow when he potentially assaults someone at some point in the future (how far ahead would THAT assault have to be planned?), go to the trouble of falsely convincing medical experts he's really transgendered, and pay whatever fee they're considering charging for this (a simple name change coast $400 or something in New York), then I say more power to him. We'd be better off concentrating our efforts on getting that sentencing statute changed.
• My brother went to a Hawkwind concert where the tickets were not tickets, they were boarding passes to the Starship Hawkwind. You had to enter your species, planet of birth and which clone generation you were. Good fun. As for gender identity, try listening to The Frogs...