Disgusting, Juvenile Behavior
State lawmakers reached a new low engaging in disgusting, juvenile and belittling behavior mocking sex changes while debating a bill that would have made it easier to get a new birth certificate after switching genders in another country. For several decades state law has authorized the change of driver's licenses and state identification cards for persons who have completed gender reassignment therapy and in some cases surgery to change their gender identification under medical supervision.
The legislation was introduced by state Representative Sara Feigenholtz shortly after a debate about neutering deer to control their population.
Two respected members of the house engaged in a juvenile and disgusting diatribe which was an embarrasment to most members of and the majority of visitors to the House chamber.
Republican Rep. Chapin Rose joked that the state might start issuing sex-change documents to deer.
Republican Rep. Bill Black said he objects to recognizing non-surgical sexchanges even though this is currently state law and has been for decades. Black in his child-like diatribe stated "Maybe you went somewhere and a voodoo doctor said you were now a man, where you had been a woman," according to the transcript of debate. He further went on sharing his own sexual fantasies of eliminating facial hair so he would not have to shave and eliminate the hair under his armpits so that he would smell better.
If anything smells here is the disgusting, juvenile diatribe of two respected members of the Illinois general assembly who chose to roll in the gutter and demonstrate their gross insensitivity to individuals who have undergone tremendous medical issues and painful personal decisions and are only asking for help from their elected representatives.
A shamefull day and shamefull behavior. And, the comments are innately sexist in their assumptions and origins.
Representative Feigenholz is correct in her characterization of this unprofessional and disgusting personal behavior as an embarrasement to many members of the general assembly and the people these otherwise caring and compassionate legislators represent.
Shame on you.
8 comments:
What a bunch of assholes.
What the heck is a non-surgical sex change?
It's nothing. Often it involves the simple medical diagnosis or use of hormone therapy.
While the opposition might be childish, the issue itself is a bit ridiculous.
A birth certificate? I had the odd idea that government records were supposed to accurately reflect events.
Born a male and want to be female? Fine. Do as you please. But don't try and change the record to act as if the birth had, in fact, been female.
There are real issues of discrimination against certain people. However, when their advocates push measures like this, it casts doubt on many of those arguments and casts those proponents as dangerous extremists.
Fight real battles. Birth certificates to reflect who you WANTED to be when you are born? That is not a real issue.
Skeeter is wrong. Birth certificates can be wrong and occasionally are.
A good example is where a newborn's genetalia are recessed at birth within the body cavity and the baby is mistakenly identified as female rather than correctly as a male.
Often, the baby is raised and socialized as a girl until later medical and psychological problems develop that indicate a terrible mistake was make. Easily corrected surgically, but the intense emotional and psychological damage can last a lifetime.
Another example is where there is a discordance between the genital appearances and chromosonal makeup. Yes, the genitals of one gender, but the immutable chromosonal markers and psychological makeup of another.
In both cases the emotional and psychological damage can be devastating.
This is a rare, but significant medical issue. Not one that out of ignorance should the subject of jokes and demeaning language.
This language is almost always sexist in nature using homophobic sterotypes and are almost always made by males directed at males.
Larry,
Is there a difference between correcting a genuine mistake, and making a change because "feels" they were born the wrong sex? There is a clear and unmistakable difference.
When you make arguments like the birth certificate argument, you lose support for the real issues that matter.
Discrimination against homosexuals and others is real. They are denied jobs. They are denied housing. That is a battle worth fighting, and a battle that those of us who are heterosexual should join.
But a birth certificate because somebody had a sex change? That's ridiculous and a distraction from real issues.
It might seem ridiculous to someone who will never find themselves in a position of being harmed because all of their documentation doesn't align. Because the firings, murders, etc. never have anything to do with that.
Who exactly is going to suffer from transpeople being allowed homogeneous records? What is gained from them being denied such? More bodies in the morgue?
Emily,
You are really claiming that, because of lack of a birth certificate, people will be killed? When is the last time anyone asked to see your birth certificate?
You are being as ridiculous as those mentioned in McKeon's article.
Government records should reflect actual events. Wanting it to be so doesn't make it so.
Arguments like this make it more difficult to obtain support for legitimate problems. It is the ultimate in crying wolf.
Post a Comment