Friday, May 26, 2006

Equal Opportunity

Dust My Broom has picked up on the story of the recent Ontario Human Rights ruling that transsexuals detained by police may opt to be body-searched by a male or female officer or both.

My question is, how does one define a transsexual? Is this option also open to transgendered persons? How about any other sexual preference?

Christiana Blizzard ("Search me? Yes please!") obviously thinks this could have some interesting implications.


liberal supporter said...

This is funny!

I like the top half vs bottom half split search option, though I don't know why they would not just use whataver rules are applied to which washroom you use.

Christina seems to think it means everyone gets an option. That actually makes some sense. She points out the erotic side of it, where people get searched by their preferred sex, something that gays have had all along.

I think in general, I would prefer to be searched by a straight male, like myself. Unless of course, you are allowed to see who will be doing the search before deciding. Kind of like Christina, after seeing the Mounties who would likely do the search...

Or we could get eunuchs to do all searches.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

lol! The whole thing is so absurd.

Funny you should mention the washroom aspect. I've often wondered about that; especially in guys'public washrooms. Isn't the whole idea of having separate washrooms for men and women so that the women don't get ogled? But what stops the gays and lesbians from ogling their own sex?

jdave34 said...


Good taste and decorum mostly. I don't imagine many gays are doing much ogling after hearing the person in the next stall straining to drop the kids off at the pool, or cutting a particularly ripe one.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

jdave, thanks for that little dose of reality.

Back to the issue, though, the Sun says:

"Officers also cannot “opt out” of strip-searching transsexuals unless they believe they have significant rights of their own to protect."

Now what are those significant rights, I wonder? Should a bi-sexual police officer for example feel their rights could be compromised, or on the other hand, could their male side be in conflict with their female side when strip-searching a transsexual? Should a bi-gendered officer even be allowed to strip-search anyone?

Is it just possible that we have gone a bit overboard with political correctness and defining so-called "rights"?

Zac said...

Perhaps those robots who the cops send in to difuse bombs should do the searches, then everyone can be happy.

jdave34 said...

I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure that most bisexuals don't have a 'male' side or 'female' side. We shouldn't confuse their sexual preference(s) with their gender's not like Two-Face in Batman....

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Zac - That's funny. I was thinking the same thing!

"We shouldn't confuse their sexual preference(s) with their gender identity"

Isn't that exactly what started the problem in the first place (i.e. male genitalia but felt he/she was female?).

Anonymous said...

I know of places where people can go to pay for someone to do this , plus they'll even throw in a light spanking to boot.

So I hear, not that I've ever been to one of those places.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

lol! Anon. Good one.

liberal supporter said...

Well on that note, let me go way off topic. On a talk show, I saw Lucy Lawless (she played Xena) talking about her fan mail. First she mentioned how she hated to have to tell all the lesbians who write in that she is married (to a man) and has kids.

Then she talks about how she gets people writing in who want her to tie them up and spank them. Interviewer asks "what kind of people write about that?"

She says "oh, mostly judges and lawyers"!

Joanne (True Blue) said...

L.S. Somehow that doesn't surprise me.

Mac said...

RCMP policy was always strict: males searched males & females searched females for all sorts of good reasons Perhaps the Mounties should hire some trannies and have them search all arrested trannies?

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Mac - "Trannies"?

Mac said...

Remember those stories I could tell, mentioned on another blog, Joanne?

On the job, I've dealt with a few trans-gendered people. Before their procedures were completed, they referred to themselves as trannies. Afterwards, they referred to themselves as women. I've never met a woman who transgendered to a male; not sure why.

I met a male-transgendered-to-woman who was a lesbian. I thought to myself that kinda defeated the whole purpose of the sex change.

Every transgendered person I've met has either had substance abuse problems or mental health problems or both. I have my theory about why that is but I'm not a pshrink...

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Mac, that is fascinating! Wow, that story about the transgendered lesbian is enough to fry the brain cells.

I'm all ears about the theories. My university major was psychology. Took a course in Abnormal Psych. Of course back then all this stuff was abnormal. Now it's normal, and apparently I'm the one who's got the problem. ;)

Mac said...

My theory isn't anything flashy.

From what I've read, the majority of transgendered persons have chromosomal differences so they, quite literally, have gender confusion. Going from memory, the normal female chromosome is XX and the normal male is XY whereas the transgendered are XYX. It appears transgendering is biological condition although no-one knows just how prevalent this difference is.

Although society's definition of "normal" has evolved to a fledgling acceptance of homosexuality, there isn't much understanding or appreciation, let alone acceptance of someone who wishes to change from one sex to another.

Faced with a physiological impetuous, along with societal and familial pressure, the issue of gender assignment becomes overwhelming, invading every aspect of their daily lives. The result is often clinical depression which can easily lead to substance abuse.

Having made the choice to pursue gender reassignment doesn't end the pressure. The procedure of gender reassignment, along with the assorted hormonal treatment and physiological changes, takes significant time during which societal and family pressures are likely worse than before. Add clinical depression and substance abuse... you've got one messed up individual.

If there was only the physiological impetuous without societal and familial pressure, there might not be the psychological problems but, even then, gender confusion wouldn't be an easy choice to resolve.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

That is an extremely interesting analysis. Quite frankly, I am more sympathetic to this type of thing than outright homosexuality.

Do you have any references for the biological claims?

I totally agree that the pressures would be very difficult and would probably make the individual susceptible to alcohol and drug abuse. Alcoholism can be considered a genetic trait or at least the likelihood of becoming an alcoholic can be hereditary I believe, so it all becomes quite murky.

Mac said...

The original article which I read was some years ago but here's a Wiki-reference about the chromosome variant which mentions a statistically higher incidence of XXY in gender identity disorder.

When it comes to "dealing" with the issue of homosexuality, it took a while for me to overcome my almost instinctive negative reaction but as I've grown and matured, both intellectually and emotionally, I had a little epiphany...

I am a happily married heterosexual male and I don't see any of those conditions that changing. That being the case, what business is it of mine to tell a homosexual that his/her relationship is less important or emotionally encompassing than mine?

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Mac, thanks for the reference.

On one level, I can agree with you - Live and let live. However, as I have said on other blogs, when it is being shoved in my face from every angle, that's when I start getting angry. It is all over T.V., movies, etc.

I also have no problem with a civil union. It is the word "Marriage" that bothers me. Personally, I think the government should get out of the marriage business. Just have civil unions for everyone, with all related benefits and we will all just be partner and partner. Of course that doesn't address the issue of children, but these days, kids are obviously not important so who cares, right?

(Sorry, just venting) ;)

Mac said...

Perhaps what is upsetting isn't the homosexuality; rather the overt sexuality, aside from orientation.

I have no problem with a couple walking in the park, holding hands and obviously enjoying each other's company. In fact, especially if it's an older couple, for some reason, I find it romantic.

I don't, however, find it particularly romantic to see two people engaged in mutual groping and exchanging bodily fluids in public.

As far as civil unions versus marriage, I've kept the church and state firmly apart in my mind. I don't go in for the semantics. Spouse, partner, whatever. The legal licence is issued by the government. The blessing comes from God. Simple.

I would rather see a child raised in a stable loving household by a same sex couple than to be raised in a dysfunctional & abusive household by a fighting hetero couple. I've seen both (professionally and personally) and there is no question in my mind.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Mac, yeah, overt sexuality in public is not appropriate no matter what the sexual orientation of the people involved.

And yes, I agree that there are heterosexual couples who have no business raising kids. And no doubt some homosexual families raise kids that turn out o.k.

I still don't think that the exceptions justify an overall acceptance of gay adoptions. Just my opinion.