Categories
Uncategorized

Blame the Jeans

There's a bill that's been brought to the forefront recently regarding equal employment opportunities for transexuals and I had the chance to hear a short debate on <a href="http://www.msnbc.com/news/hardball_front.asp?0si=-">Hardball on MSNBC</a>.
Some research showed that 70% of the transexuals in San Francisco were unemployed, and the report concluded that it was due to their sexual orientation. The argument being made is that transexuality (including cross-dressing etc.) was an inborn attribute. As such, it was involuntary and should not be used to discriminate transexuals in the issue of employment. The reverse side of the argument is that employment inherently contains some form of discrimination, and at its core transexuality is a choice.
This is such a tricky issue. Where does genetic predisposition end and choice begin? If I argue that I wasn't born as smart as Einstein, could I then sue NASA for not employing me? It is ironic that the United States, where personal choice is a pillar of society, genes are often used as a scapegoat to disavow the responsibility that comes with freedom of choice.
Is transexuality a choice or a genetic predisposition? I'm no expert in the area and honestly, I don't know. But a fair yardstick should be used when measuring our ability to "affect our own destinies" and facing up to the consequences of our own actions.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *