Forbes: ACLU: Forcing Flight Attendants To Dress As Either Male Or Female Is Illegal

[Coder]

See Coder... I bet this jolly old fella never thought his friendly face would grace the pages of SkirtCafe! You never know where you'll wind up!

[rivegauche]

There seems to be a misunderstanding here about binary sex. Sex is not binary. If you regard female as XX and male as XY, there are people who are neither of the above. We have XXY, XYY and even XO. A person who is XXY (Klinefelter Syndrome) and XYY will be classed as male when XXX and XO will be classed as female. These variants may not be able to reproduce. There are people who are clinically intersex which by definition is non-binary. This is very useful to counter the Bible thumpers when they say "male and female created he them" so you can ask who created the non-binary genotypes.

[Ralph]

If you regard female as XX and male as XY, there are people who are neither of the above. We have XXY, XYY and even XO. A person who is XXY (Klinefelter Syndrome) and XYY will be classed as male when XXX and XO will be classed as female. These variants may not be able to reproduce. There are people who are clinically intersex which by definition is non-binary.

I think there we get into a semantic quibble. Certainly there are variants of the standard biological separation into "male" or "female", but the vast majority of humans fall into one or the other of those bins. Every biological trait that is "standard equipment" has one-off mutations that deviate from its intended purpose. We could say "the human eye is designed to accept input from a specific range of wavelengths in the visible light spectrum and process that data into shapes and colours", but the fact that many people are born with eyes that do not perform this function does not invalidate the design purpose of eyes.

Unless the flight attendants do, indeed, fall outside of the standard biological divisions, the fact that such exceptions exist is not relevant to their case. What's at issue here is whether they should be allowed to express themselves in a wider variety of clothing choices, regardless of the reason for those choices. Perhaps a woman finds the skirts unflattering or awkward, and prefers trousers. Perhaps a man finds skirts more comfortable. Perhaps either of them for reasons far beyond the scope of this discussion finds it more natural to identify with, and present as, a gender that differs from their biological sex. And, indeed, perhaps some of the people involve may be (unlikely but possible) biologically outside the male/female binary.

[crfriend]

I think there we get into a semantic quibble. Certainly there are variants of the standard biological separation into "male" or "female", but the vast majority of humans fall into one or the other of those bins.

What we're seeing is what happens when "pop-sci" mixed with wishful thinking bumps into hard science and statistics.

Yes, genetic variations do exist, but those that do frequently either kill the unfortunate recipient before birth or result in sterility (an inability to procreate). It's all in the statistics, and the larger the sample the better the numbers will be; however, XY=male and XX=female the overwhelming part of the time. If nothing else, science has gotten very good at discriminating samples.

An XY individual need not feel male, just as an XX individual may not feel female, but that's not genetics, that's psychology. If one is not pursuing a romantic relationship, then what does it matter anyway?

[pelmut]

Certainly there are variants of the standard biological separation into "male" or "female", but the vast majority of humans fall into one or the other of those bins.

...but we should not be forcing those people who don't fall into one of them to live a lie in order to affirm our incorrect views.


We don't have any complaints about access ... because disabled people can't get up the steps to complain to us.
Our software works on every type of computer ... because it prevents anyone from getting in touch when it doesn't work on their machine.
We don't have homosexuals in our country ... because we persecute and kill them so that nobody would dare admit they were homosexual.
Human sex is binary ... because we only allow people to identfy as one of two categories.
Men don't wear skirts ... because we won't let them.

[Fred in Skirts]

There seems to be a misunderstanding here about binary sex. Sex is not binary. If you regard female as XX and male as XY, there are people who are neither of the above. We have XXY, XYY and even XO. A person who is XXY (Klinefelter Syndrome) and XYY will be classed as male when XXX and XO will be classed as female. These variants may not be able to reproduce. There are people who are clinically intersex which by definition is non-binary. This is very useful to counter the Bible thumpers when they say "male and female created he them" so you can ask who created the non-binary genotypes.

You just say the DEVIL DID!

[crfriend]

...but we should not be forcing those people who don't fall into one of them to live a lie in order to affirm our incorrect views.

Precisely. The individual should be treated with the same respect and compassion as the next individual. It's called civilised behaviour. Anything less will not suffice.

Men don't wear skirts ... because we won't let them.

No, society expects, nay demands, that men who wear skirts identify as something that they are not -- which is precisely the same problem but going the other way. (And possibly similar numbers.) Whither equality?

[pelmut]

...This is very useful to counter the Bible thumpers when they say "male and female created he them" so you can ask who created the non-binary genotypes.

You just say the DEVIL DID!

And in the eyes of some so-called 'religions'. that justifies mocking them, ostracising them, torturing them with 'conversion therapy' or burning them at the stake  ...all in the name of a loving god.

[Stu]

There seems to be a misunderstanding here about binary sex. Sex is not binary. If you regard female as XX and male as XY, there are people who are neither of the above. We have XXY, XYY and even XO. A person who is XXY (Klinefelter Syndrome) and XYY will be classed as male when XXX and XO will be classed as female. These variants may not be able to reproduce. There are people who are clinically intersex which by definition is non-binary. This is very useful to counter the Bible thumpers when they say "male and female created he them" so you can ask who created the non-binary genotypes.

Sex is binary. The variants you mention are genetic disorders that affect the individual's ability to reproduce, which is the entire biological point of sex and sex differences.

And I am an atheist.

[Stu]

And in the eyes of some so-called 'religions'. that justifies mocking them, ostracising them, torturing them with 'conversion therapy' or burning them at the stake  ...all in the name of a loving god.

That would be vile. Many if not most people would be found to have one or more faulty or undesired genes if we did but know. There is no reason why a disorder of sex chromosomes should be regarded any differently from, for example, someone with Marfan's Syndrome or Jackson-Weiss Syndrome. People should be treated with consideration, compassion and dignity, and facilitated to live as fulfilling as life as anyone else. Of course, in doing so, we should also be willing to confront and discuss uncomfortable realities of such disorders.

[Stu]

Getting back to the trans issue, my view is that it shouldn’t be an issue for the vast majority of people. It will of course be an issue for the individuals concerned, their families and their medical practitioners – but beyond that it’s nobody’s business. I like to think I regard and treat people as they try to present themselves and yes, clothing does play a part in that determination, along with a host of other factors including footwear, jewellery, accessories, cosmetics, height, body shape, hairstyle and adornments, facial hair, voice and speech mannerisms, gait and, of course, name.

This issue reminds me of a radio show I heard while driving through Denmark last year and where I interpreted what was being said for my wife. It was a phone-in show talking about children coming out as trans. A woman from Jylland, which is the far west of the country, called in to tell her story. She was a single mother of opposite-sex twins living in a conservative rural area (as a contrast from the cosmopolitan interviewer in Copenhagen). The twins were now young adults. As small children, they didn’t distinguish between each other’s clothes or shoes – they would choose something from their joint wardrobe and gender wasn’t a factor. She recalled thinking that was “sweet” at the time, but expected they would grow out of it. But, as they reached and passed primary school age, they didn’t grow out of it and family members, teachers and neighbours started to wonder what was going on. When they reached puberty, she referred the boy (not the girl, for some unexplained reason!) first to a school counsellor regarding him often choosing girls’ clothes intended for his sister. The school counsellor was mortified (it was a very conservative Lutheran farming area) and wasn’t sure how to handle the situation and referred him to the local doctor who, in turn, was convinced he was suffering from a gender issue and referred him to a psychiatrist. The psychiatrist asked the boy what he wanted his mother to know about their conversation, and the boy said she (female psych) could tell his mother everything. The psychiatrist explained to his mother that he wasn’t remotely trans and he didn’t have any gender identity issues whatsoever – he just loved the feel and look of some garments that were more usual for girls. Some months after seeing the psychiatrist, the mother said her son declared he wouldn’t be wearing any of his sister’s clothes again and she asked why. He replied that he was attracted to a girl at the local horse-riding school and if she found out he wore dresses, that might put her off him.

The point of the story for me here is that, if we say we shouldn’t judge, we should also be careful not to make assumptions. Let people be as they are without trying to pigeonhole them.

[pelmut]

The variants you mention are genetic disorders

The variants are just variants.  To call them disorders is to put a value judgement on them and that is the foundation of eugenics.  Would you tell someone that their left-handedness in a predominantly right-handed society is a neurological disorder or their darker skin in a predominantly light-skinned population is a pigmentation disorder?

[Stu]

"The variants are just variants. To call them disorders is to put a value judgement on them"

No, they are disorders as they are mostly undesired and they adversely affect the individual's ability to procreate.

Nobody would call Down Syndrome or Marfan's a "variant". Let's call things what they are.

[moonshadow]

Well, I can't see the exit door on this thread for all the soap boxes stacked up in the way.

I'm going to conclude my thoughts thusly: That this article and/or the trans thing doesn't bother me, and I'm not seeing very much of the concerns expressed in my real world situation. I have got... SO MANY more important issues to tend to without worrying whether "society" wants to label me a wannabe woman or not. I really couldn't care less about how many sex variants, mutations, or whatever there are. I am not a genetic scientist, and I also know that Nature is what it is.

Gentlemen, good luck, Godspeed, and goodnight.

[rivegauche]

There seems to be a misunderstanding here about binary sex. Sex is not binary. If you regard female as XX and male as XY, there are people who are neither of the above. We have XXY, XYY and even XO. A person who is XXY (Klinefelter Syndrome) and XYY will be classed as male when XXX and XO will be classed as female. These variants may not be able to reproduce. There are people who are clinically intersex which by definition is non-binary. This is very useful to counter the Bible thumpers when they say "male and female created he them" so you can ask who created the non-binary genotypes.

Sex is binary. The variants you mention are genetic disorders that affect the individual's ability to reproduce, which is the entire biological point of sex and sex differences.

And I am an atheist.

It is a bit mean to define these people on the basis of their inability to reproduce. That is true of lots of people for all sorts of reasons - are they all suffering from a disorder? Does the fact that I have no children (as far as I know I am XY) invalidate my existence? Disorder is a very strong and condemnatory expression. I refuse to use it. I maintain the view that sex is not binary. People should be valued for who they are - not just for those they beget. Atheism is no more defensible than theism - you cannot prove God does not exist. I am a non-believer.