Recently I picked up a copy of the "San Diego Reader". The cover story was called, "Hello, my Gender is Bunny", or something similar. It was interesting enough, and the -- very -- interesting subject matter was tastefully covered by the reporter. It seems the subject of the story is trying to begin a male-to-female transgender process, and in the meantime imagines itself to be a dragon.
So why the outcry in the next week's Reader? In any periodical publication I've ever read, I've never seen so many comments on one story. What were they all about?
The reporter refused to refer to the subject of the story in female pronouns.
Since the subject is objectively male, I couldn't help but wonder what the problem was. In reading the comments, I discovered that they feel the reporter was being disrespectful and should have complied with the man/woman/dragon's request to be referred to as a she.
Is one really the ultimate judge of one's own sexual association? One of the comments stated that, "If [the subject of the story] wanted to be referred to as Latino and not Hispanic, it would have been unspeakably rude not to do so. [The same applies to his/her/its preferred gender]." (My paraphrase)
Hmmm. Is one really the ultimate judge of one's own ethnicity, either? There are things which are appropriately called "unchangeables", including sex, ethnicity, family, parentage, and times of birth and death. The male/female/dragon can't choose for himself like he was ordering lunch. That's just not the way it works. He can, obviously, refer to himself however he wants to. He can think of himself as whatever he wants to. But it seems unjust to try to force another person to call him what he objectively is not. (Think about it ... couldn't that have been just a bit uncomfortable ...? Poor reporter guy.)
Bottom line: body parts don't lie. Get this down, commenters, since you may have flunked out in sixth grade.
Monday, April 6, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
