By Marc Jampole
There are very few situations in public life in which the
differences between males and females matter. In fact, I can only think of
four:
1.
Only women can bear children.
2.
Men are faster and stronger than women, so we
segregate the two sexes at the very highest levels of athletic competition.
This segregation is not necessary for intellectual pursuits.
3.
Our society has developed a group modesty about
the naked human body, especially when it is engaged in elimination functions.
One way we enforce our body mores is to have separate bathrooms, locker rooms
and shower rooms for each sex.
4.
Certain organizations and individuals establish
scholarships or other financial aid for people of one sex, usually but not
always female. These scholarships often compensate for the decades of
discrimination women faced that led to an underrepresentation in certain
professions, such as the natural sciences and engineering.
The first distinction between men and women I noted above does
not affect a discussion of the rights of the transgendered, but the other three
are at the nexus of the problem of assigning and defining sexual identity in a
way that includes the transgendered and does not discriminate against them.
The avant-garde of political correctness is now parsing
sexual identification into a number of categories: cis (someone who identifies
with the sex “assigned” to them at birth by virtue of their visible genitalia)
and trans, male and female, and, if we include sexuality, straight, gay, bi and
the other varieties of love. Thus, someone can be a cis straight male, a bi
trans female or any number of other combinations.
(FYI, I find it highly problematic to use “assigned” to
describe the process of identifying the sex of a child at birth. What the real
world does when a child is born is not the aggressive action of assignment, but
the more passive act of acknowledging the sex of a child at birth as defined by
its genitalia. What else do we have to go on at that point?)
This segmentation probably comes in handy on dating websites
and has a sociological value, as well. On the other hand, sexual identification
and orientation should matter not a whit when it comes to decisions related to hiring,
firing, promotion, university admission, club admissions,
government, healthcare and employment benefits, housing, business, shopping and
congregating in public places.
But we can’t have a separate bathroom or separate
professional basketball leagues for each of these types of sexuality. The
question remains then, how do we define female and male in those few, limited
situations when it matters? Let’s keep in mind that
best-guess estimates
put transgendered people at two-tenths of one percent of the population
(700,000 out of 322.3 million). According to one source,
about one-third of all transgendered people have undergone surgery to obtain
the genitals of the sex with which they identify, which means that defining who
is a man or woman for the purposes of athletics, scholarship or bathroom use
affects only about one out of every 691 people. That number will decline as
acceptance of the transgendered grows in society and more select surgery.
In a sparsely covered announcement, the International
Olympics Committee (I.O.C.) has said that moving forward it would allow
transgender athletes who have not had surgery to compete in the Olympics.
People identified at birth as female who now consider themselves male get a
free pass, whereas those identified as male at birth who consider themselves
female will have to pass a test showing that their testosterone level is below
a certain point.
I think it’s a bad decision for several reasons: First of
all, past scandals involving performance drugs, including East Germany’s
women’s track team in the 1970s, suggests that the probability of abuse is
high. Beyond that, for transgendered people who have not had surgery, we have
to take them at their word that they are truly transgendered and not trying to
game the system. There is also the issue of fairness—it’s unfair to set a
higher bar for one transgendered sex than for the other.
Lawsuits or the loud outcry when the public sees someone who
looks male competing in women’s track will quickly make the I.O.C. regret its
decisions.
The I.O.C. should have required that transgendered athletes
complete the process of transformation through having surgery. In fact, for
those small numbers of instances when we must distinguish between male and
female, the assignment of sex should always follow the genitalia.
Meanwhile, we should eliminate as many of the areas as
possible in which we need to make sexual distinctions. There are quick and
not-so-quick fixes for the challenge of bathrooms and preferential scholarships
that involve eliminating the need for the distinction. We could easily switch
to unisex bathrooms in which every stall is a separate room. I like the idea,
but be forewarned that three things will happen: 1) Men will complain of long
lines; 2) More sexual and drug behavior will occur in public bathrooms; 3) Most
people will feel a greater sense of privacy and dignity not having to urinate
three inches next to a stranger or see a stranger’s leg and shoe while unreeling
toilet paper. Special scholarships and programs for women will disappear about
a decade after workplace and other discrimination against women ends. On the other hand, I see no way around the
sexual wall that exists at the highest level of professional sports.
I know what I’m saying is going to anger and offend many
transgendered people, possibly including two of my first cousins. I am so proud
of both of them. They made a decision to come out of the closet that was
particularly gutsy in light of the rigidly macho family we come from. I am
delighted that they are happier people now, and it pisses me off when I hear
someone make a derogatory comment about them or other transgendered people. I
support their choice, and the choice made by all 700,000 transgendered
Americans, those who undergo surgery and those who don’t.
But in the public world, corruption and other forms of
darkness always fill ambiguity, and there is no way we can remove the ambiguity
that exists to the outside world in someone who proclaims he or she is
transgendered and has not had surgery. I do not believe we unfairly
discriminate against transgendered individuals to insist that they must have
the genitalia associated with the sex of the team for which they want to play
or the bathroom they want to use. It’s the only fair way to resolve the inherent
ambiguity in the situation, e.g., someone with a penis who proclaims he’s a
woman wants to play for the women’s team.
Remember that the situation is ambiguous only because they chose to make
it so by not having surgery—which, by the way, should be covered under all
healthcare insurance—to confirm what they know in their hearts to be true.
No comments:
Post a Comment