jab (imported) wrote: Tue Dec 09, 2003 10:25 am I'm sorry, but I don't agree. You seem to be saying that the way to deal with gender inequity issues is to treat everyone equally, when that's simply not possible.

Sometimes the distinction falls along gender identity (okay, let's just

call it "plumbing" - because that's a better description) lines: certain

jobs need muscle mass/ability, and it might make sense to rewrite

work rules based on that. ("To do this job, you must be able to lift

at least 150 lbs and carry it a quarter-mile" is a reasonable requirement

for certain positions, and a 5'2" man might not be as good a choice for

such a role as a 5'11" woman who lifts weights. Statistically, the testosterone helps build those muscles, but it's the ability-to-lift that's

the real key.)

Sometimes the issue isn't the sex/gender/plumbing of the participant,

but the age: we don't want to see teenagers (or younger) as sexual

beings, so we hide sexuality from them with segregated bathrooms and

certain clothing and so on. Perhaps the segregation should be based

on age? (I'm not really suggesting this, but it does seem to be tossed

into the mix.)

Men, women, and modified-folks, are not interchangeable. Even a

hormone-free, surgically-modified human still has life experiences that

harken back to when that being was an intact man or woman, and so

even nullo'ed folks are interchangeable.

Why pretend otherwise?

-jab