I am seriously having trouble following this.
Story #1: In Colorado the Transgender Legal Defense and Education Fund has filed a lawsuit on behalf of Coy Mathis and his family. Coy is a 6-year-old boy, a male triplet, who believes he is a girl. (Thus "the Transgender Legal Defense Fund".) When Coy was 18 months old he started exhibiting "female characteristics" such as playing with dolls and wishing he was a girl. So, clearly, his forward-looking parents immediately set out to correct this error. They dressed him in girls' clothing and treated him like a girl. Now they're upset that the local school isn't going to allow him to use the girls' bathroom. He'll have to use the boys' (because he has the equipment) or a private bathroom. It's not fair! Poor little Coy believes he is a girl. He acts like a girl, talks like a girl, dresses like a girl, thinks he is a girl, so why not let him be a girl?
Story #2: I know, it's not really new, but it makes the point. The news the other day carried a story of local girl, Jenesis Outain, who made the boys' baseball team. She didn't try out for the girls' softball team that was available. She wanted to be on the boys' team. And she made it. You see, there should be no distinction between girls and boys. If she wants to play on the boys' team and she's good enough to make the team, she should be allowed to.
Here's my dilemma. Which is it? Is there "male" and "female" or isn't there? Are there female and male roles or aren't there? Are there distinctly "girl" things and distinctly "boy" things or aren't there? If not, then transgender is meaningless. If so, then a girl on a boys' team is mindless. I mean, look, if it is a "boys' team", then in what sense do girls play on it? (And why is there no clamor to allow boys to play on "girls' teams"?)
Putting these two stories up against each other, it appears that the gender culture clash of our day is a lie. Either there are female characteristics and female roles and the transgenders have a point or there are not and the girl on the boys' team is a hero. If there are no differences, who cares if a girl is on a team? If there are no differences, what does "feel like a girl" even mean?
All of that without even bringing up biology.
6 comments:
There you go thinking things through again. Why can't you just go with your feelings like everyone else. Logic has no place in a discussion of any sort. That poor little boy that has been taught he is a girl is being finally told he's a boy (which I'm sure he would have figured out in the sex education classes). Imagine how he feels. Gender is irrelevant, only feelings matter. And if that girl wants to be the son her father never had, who are you to say she shouldn't be one of the boys? Anatomy doesn't matter, only feelings.
You think too much.
I guess I'll join the thinking too much crowd on this.
I guess where I draw the line is that the bathroom is a biology issue. The child in question is biologically male and should use the same bathroom as all the other males. Can you imagine the outcry when this kid is in the girls bathroom and some girl notices the difference between her and the "girl" next to her? What about locker rooms? On this one it seems biology trumps social engineering.
The other situation, it seems, is a matter of ability and performance. If the girl can run, hit, throw, and field at a level that allows her to play baseball; let her play. If she can't then don't. While kids are younger the differences between the genders probably won't show up much on the baseball field. I realize that this can get problematic when you get into serious league/school play. But at that level, no coach is going to keep someone who isn't good enough.
Yeah, I think too much, but I sure have fun doing it!
This is Jenesis mother and there is nothing wrong with a girl playing on a boys baseball team. She worked really hard to be apart of a sport she loves to play. How dare you compare the first story to hers. Two completely different aspect. If she can play the sport why not let her play. Obviously you don't have any kids or have a life. Let her live out her dreams and maybe one day you will see her on a major league baseball team. She has what it takes...
I'm sorry, Jenesis's mother. It appears that you misunderstood the point. I was not "comparing". I was superimposing. The first story suggests that there is a very real definition of "masculine" and "feminine" and their little boy/girl fell in the "feminine" category and should, therefore, be classified as a "girl".
Jenesis's story goes the other way with the concept. The idea of a "boys' team" is pointless. If girls are as good as boys, they should be allowed to play on the "boys' team" (which, by definition, makes it no longer a "boys' team"). Gender distinctions are meaningless. If a girl can play as well as a boy, why not let her?
The superimposition of these two stories says that 1) there are very real gender distinctions and 2) there are no real gender distinctions. That was the point. It wasn't a comparison, but a contrast.
Nor did I say anything detrimental about your daughter, so being unkind to me ("Obviously you don't have any kids or have a life.") probably isn't the best way to get your point across.
Post a Comment