Sister Toldjah!
11/7/2006 - 10:10 am

Did you know that the New York City Board of Health is considering a plan that would allow people to change the sex on their birth certificate even if they have not had a sex-change? Via the NYT:

Separating anatomy from what it means to be a man or a woman, New York City is moving forward with a plan to let people alter the sex on their birth certificate even if they have not had sex-change surgery.

Under the rule being considered by the city’s Board of Health, which is likely to be adopted soon, people born in the city would be able to change the documented sex on their birth certificates by providing affidavits from a doctor and a mental health professional laying out why their patients should be considered members of the opposite sex, and asserting that their proposed change would be permanent.

Applicants would have to have changed their name and shown that they had lived in their adopted gender for at least two years, but there would be no explicit medical requirements.

“Surgery versus nonsurgery can be arbitrary,” said Dr. Thomas R. Frieden, the city’s health commissioner. “Somebody with a beard may have had breast-implant surgery. It’s the permanence of the transition that matters most.”

If approved, the new rule would put New York at the forefront of efforts to redefine gender. A handful of states do not require surgery for such birth certificate changes, but in some of those cases patients are still not allowed to make the change without showing a physiological shift to the opposite gender.

In New York, the proposed change comes after four years of discussion among health officials, an eight-member panel of transgender experts and vital records offices nationwide. It is an outgrowth of the transgender community’s push to recognize that some people may not have money to get a sex-change operation, while others may not feel the need to undergo the procedure and are simply defining themselves as members of the opposite sex. While it may be a radical notion elsewhere, New York City has often tolerated such blurring of the lines of gender identity.

And the proposal reflects how the transgender movement has become politically potent beyond its small numbers, having roots in the muscular politics of the city’s gay rights movement.

Transgender advocates consider the New York proposal an overdue bulwark against discrimination that recognizes an emerging shift away from viewing gender as simply the sum of one’s physical parts. But some psychiatrists and doctors are skeptical of the move, saying sexual self-definition should stop at rewriting medical history.

[...]

Joann Prinzivalli, 52, a lawyer for the New York Transgender Rights Organization, a man who has lived as a woman since 2000, without surgery, said the changes amount to progress, a move away from American culture’s misguided fixation on genitals as the basis for one’s gender identity.

“It’s based on an arbitrary distinction that says there are two and only two sexes,” she said. “In reality the diversity of nature is such that there are more than just two, and people who seem to belong to one of the designated sexes may really belong to the other.”

Yeah, I mean, why the hell do we fixate on “genitals” to determine who is a man and who is a woman? That’s like sooo yesterday.

The radicals in the gay community want to redefine marriage and saturate the definition to the point where it has no meaning, and now they want to make it to where you are not defined as a man or woman based on the ‘equipment’ you are born with. As I’ve written before, this is the problem with redefining terms: once you start doing it, you won’t be able to stop it. I have a feeling, though, that this is just a backdoor way for gay people to be allowed to get married in NY. Just change your sex from man to woman, and you can marry your male partner.

Allah’s on the same wavelength.

Hat tip: Stop the ACLU


Trackback URI for this post:
http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2006/11/07/taking-choice-to-a-whole-new-level/trackback/

Comments
  1. These are the same clowns who are going to save the world from trans fats, right?

    Okay, call me stupid, it’s undoubtedly the result of having wasted fifteen years in the military, plus another eleven (so far) as a civilian deployed overseas with the military (yes, I know, that’s a lot of stupid), but dopey old me believes that if you have the dangly bits you’re a guy, and if you have the tucked in bits you’re a gal.

    Go ahead, I’ll wait while everybody checks.

    How about your height and weight? Will they put what you want it to be on your driver’s license, as opposed to the so-called “actual” weight and height the patriarchy insists you are, based on their outmoded white male science and, you know, empirical measurement? And age, too? I am not really fifty years old, whatever some arbitrary “date” indicates. I think I will be, er… twenty nine for the rest of my life, okay? And who’s to say I’m not? Certainly not some Fascist clerk at the DMV.

    It’s far past time for government to cease claiming they have the answers. No please excuse me, I have to get ahold of the IRS and explain to them what my actual taxable income was last year. It’s very much less than they think.

    Comment by Steve Skubinna @ 11/7/2006 - 12:32 pm


  2. Sunday was the New York City Marathon. We haven’t had a native New Yorker female runner win in years. So we stuff a guy who always finishes ahead of the women into a dress for two years and presto!

    Comment by Tom TB @ 11/7/2006 - 1:17 pm


  3. Ah. Hah. I see. We are now going to apply Quantum Mechanics and Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle to gender. Virtual particles. Virtual sex change. And all this while something called Trans Fats are removed from restaurants. Virtual gender. Virtual french fries. Well I’m still real. Or am I? Could I, like Alice, be part of the Red King’s dream? Do I want to even know?
    (%)

    Comment by Leslie @ 11/7/2006 - 1:34 pm


  4. “It’s based on an arbitrary distinction that says there are two and only two sexes,” she said. “In reality the diversity of nature is such that there are more than just two, and people who seem to belong to one of the designated sexes may really belong to the other.”

    Anyone else see the logical problem with this quote? So what is it…are there more than two sexes or do you pick one of the two available?

    Comment by Glib Fortuna @ 11/7/2006 - 1:39 pm


  5. So what, precisely, do these other sexes do in reproduction? Why is it that so far nobody has documented a case of more than two distinct sexes being required?

    Why don’t egregiously stupid people like this get called on it? That’s the greatest crime of PC, the refusal to look morons in the eye and say “Shut the hell up, moron.”

    Comment by Steve Skubinna @ 11/7/2006 - 3:17 pm


  6. Hey Glib: The quote does seem to explain certain tendencies with the dhimmicrats and what their continual self abuse has wrought. Dan Blather lead the way man! Er uh woman, uhm uh oh hell, leader of the invertebrates!

    I think the mouthpiece has described the innate ability of lefty loons and an age old eyeless bug. If left untreated, they’ll soon be mastering the increasingly common practice of self abortion.

    Comment by forest hunter @ 11/7/2006 - 7:18 pm


  7. “Why don’t egregiously stupid people like this get called on it? That’s the greatest crime of PC, the refusal to look morons in the eye and say “Shut the hell up, moron.”

    Abso-freakin’-lutely! I’ve been wondering that for years!

    “If left untreated, they’ll soon be mastering the increasingly common practice of self abortion.”

    I wish they’d hurry!

    Comment by Marshall Art @ 11/8/2006 - 1:22 am


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Comment moderation is in use. Please do not submit your comment twice. If you are new to this site please make sure to read my policy on comments and trackbacks before submitting your comment/trackback.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.