New York City — Gender Personal Choice

Update 2018 08 18: Added introduction, minor edits, and links to related articles

A 2006 NY Times article discusses New York City’s plans to make gender personal choice. That set the stage for rapidly escalating gender inflation.  A recent count (2016) identified that New York City officially recognized not just five, not just seven but already 31 genders, with the theoretical limit of the number of possible genders set by human imagination (and that is unlimited).

Thanks to Gordon:

In a move going well beyond the current efforts of homosexuals in Canada to self-servingly fabricate the parental information section of birth records, an even more serious line is apparently about to be crossed Stateside, in which public records are to be forged as a matter of policy. Like most terrible ideas proposed as policy, this one is cloaked in the garb of fairness and compassion. How can it ever be a good idea for governments to deliberately lie in matters of the public records? That makes even the truth the victim of infinitely varying imaginings. Immediate fallout:  New York City brilliantly outflanks state ban on gay marriage

New York Plans to Make Gender Personal Choice

The New York Times
November 7, 2006
By DAMIEN CAVE

Separating anatomy from what it means to be a man or a woman, New York City is moving forward with a plan to let people alter the sex on their birth certificate even if they have not had sex-change surgery….

But some psychiatrists said that eliminating identification difficulties for some transgender people also opened the door to unwelcome advances from imposters.

“I’ve already heard of a ‘transgendered’ man who claimed at work to be ‘a woman in a man’s body but a lesbian’ and who had to be expelled from the ladies’ restroom because he was propositioning women there,” Dr. Paul McHugh, a member of the President’s Council of Bioethics and chairman of the psychiatry department at Johns Hopkins University, wrote in an e-mail message on the subject. “He saw this as a great injustice in that his behavior was justified in his mind by the idea that the categories he claimed for himself were all ‘official’ and had legal rights attached to them.”….

Full Story

The article contains quite a few statements that cause concern.

While it may be a radical notion elsewhere, New York City has often tolerated such blurring of the lines of gender identity.

This one is problematic:

“Surgery versus nonsurgery can be arbitrary,” said Dr. Thomas R. Frieden, the city’s health commissioner. “Somebody with a beard may have had breast-implant surgery. It’s the permanence of the transition that matters most.”

The problem with that is, of course, that permanence is whatever its beholder wishes it to be.  A good number of lesbians of convenience  changed their “gender” at will, and back….  How will we know whether we transgress against their pleasure or feelings when or if we call them at any given time Mr., Ms, Miss, Mrs., Sir or Madam? (2018 08 18: Complications with gender fluidity that now, 12 years later, become reality.)

How about this one?

In New York, the proposed change comes after four years of discussion among health officials, an eight-member panel of transgender experts and vital records offices nationwide.

It is obvious that those transgender experts don’t care a whit about what they ram down the throats of the 98 percent of the population that constitutes the heterosexual majority, whose opinions had to be overcome during those four years of discussions.

There are so many fallacies in the reasoning offered by the “transgender” or “transsexual” (whatever those terms may mean) advocates mentioned or quoted in that article, that what is needed is not merely an assessment of “transgendered” individuals vs. people going by traditional norms.  What may be needed is a comparison of the mores of sheep and people, to be able to assess the relative ‘bestiality’ of beasts vs. that of humans.

–Walter

PS. 2018 08 18: You may wish to consider the future (not all that far off anymore) of gender fluidity contemplated in ‘Triton (1976), by Samuel R. Delany.


#GenderPersonalChoice

See also:

(Visited 5 times, 1 visit(s) today)
This entry was posted in Family, Gay issues, Men's Issues. Bookmark the permalink.