IS COMPROMISE IMPOSSIBLE?

      I saw another post from a friend today about Canada having a regulation that prohibits transgendereds from boarding a plane if "the passenger does not appear to be of the gender indicated on the identification he or she presents" and of course this has the "trans community" up in arms over discrimination and whatnot (even though there is currently no example on record of a transgendered being denied a flight under this regulation). It's not stated explicitly, but I'm guessing this would have something to do with identity theft or some other form of fraud. As a commenter pointed out, if your picture showed you as dark-skinned but you appeared white as snow to the boarding agent, they're not going to let you on board the plane. As I've mentioned before, transgenderism is where my line of acceptance is. I don't accept it as just another line in the broad spectrum of gender expression. Transgenderism sounds like a mental disease and should be treated accordingly.

      Now, don't get me wrong, I understand and grasp the concept of gender expression and how it might vary throughout the population. Looking at samples of my music tastes would surely confirm that I am not a typically gendered person with regards to stereotypes for my male sex. I know that men and women as a population range in their expression of masculinity and femininity and I'm cool with that because hey, vive la difference! Transgenderism crosses the line for me because of the reality denial. Again, he/she; boy/girl; man/woman; etc. are identifiers based on assigned sex (i.e. the sex you were born as) and not identifiers based on feelings or identity. But I'm rehashing and digressing...

       The compromise feels rather simple here and I will base it using myself as an analogue. I hate formal wear. I really do. I find it pretentious and physically uncomfortable to wear. I also find wearing suits to be uncomfortable psychologically...I don't feel like myself in them, more like a phony. Suits carry all that baggage of perceived wealth and status and the history that goes along with that perceived wealth and status. I'm a commoner...a working  man of the working class. I have no desire to appear as anything other than my station. However, when I attend a wedding or a funeral, I am expected to wear a suit and dress shoes and not the polo shirt, khakis, and sneakers I prefer. I put on the suit and dress shoes because I know the wedding or the funeral is not about me, but about the family of the deceased or the couple to be married (and even when it's my wedding, unless the bride-to-be is like me formality-wise, I will dress as formally as she expects for the occasion because a wedding, even my own, is not about me). I will put up with feeling uncomfortable in both the clothes and my skin for a day because I'm not an asshole douche who insists on making a scene for my own selfish preferences which brings me back to the transgendereds...

       If you're a transgendered person and your passport or ID has your sex listed as male, wear a fucking suit for a couple of hours and be uncomfortable for a few hours both physically and in your own skin and stop inconveniencing everyone with your selfish preferences. Consider it "gender formalwear" that you take out for "special" occasions. It's not that hard to do and it in no way compromises who you are or feel like you are and if it does, if you truly could not bear to wear stereotypically sex appropriate clothing for a few hours, tell me again how your condition is not that of a mental disorder. Stop making it all about you.

       And of course, a commenter named Jason did make just such an observation only to get the self-appointed thread minder, Christin, to chime in with this response:

That is not an option for some trans people, Jason. Look up “transsexual standards of care” and “transsexual real life test.”

Besides, being forced to “put (one’s) man pants back on for 8 hours” is an indignity… a discriminatory human rights violation.

       Really? A human rights violation? Overboard much? At least Christin says "some trans people" but that doesn't help her (his?) argument that transgenderism is simply another variant in the broad spectrum of gender expression and not an indicator of a mental disorder.

       Maybe it comes down to this: While I feel it is wrong for the majority to oppress the minority, I am not so easily persuaded that the minority owes no respect toward that majority. And if you're a minority of a minority, being mindful the majority opinion ought to be more of a priority. I look at it mathematically and to keep it sexual, homosexuals (and bisexuals) make up 3½% of the population in the United States as of April 2011 (I honestly thought it was 10-15%. I'm genuinely surprised) and transgendereds at 0.3% (or, for the sake of argument, about a tenth of the gay population). The question you have to ask yourself is when does the number grow small enough so as to become burdensome on the general population when demanding accommodation? And this can apply to any type of minority status such as religion, allergies, diet, and physical handicaps.

       Say you have a high school comprised of 1,000 students spread out over four grades (in other words, about 250 students per grade). This would mean, in this imaginary school, 962 students would be straight; 35 students would be gay/lesbian/bisexual (8 or 9 per grade); and 3 students would be transgendered (not even all grades would have one). Should those three students' demands for accommodation trump the expectations of the remaining 997 students? Would those three students be placing an undue burden on the remaining 997 in so doing? Is asking for conformity/accommodation from these three students an undue burden placed upon them by the rule-making body?

       I guess what I'm asking is, at what point does not being burdensome fall upon you and not the community at large? At what point must you do the accommodating and not the community? At what point does communal interest trump self interest? And how much self interest should be tolerated by the communal interest?