WaPo: A "Transgender Woman" Is Challenging Chicago's Definition Of The Female Breast
The article is written in PC newspeak, as is the WaPo's practice. So, of course, the transgender "woman" in question is not a woman, but a man who has, apparently, had cosmetic surgery to appear womanly. Consequently, I don't see the problem. Sullivan-Knoff is not a woman, so the ordinance does not apply to him.
As for whether there should be laws banning women from exposing their breasts in public--well, that's a perfectly reasonable question. Such laws aren't particularly easy to defend, and perhaps they should be ditched. OTOH, it's also not easy to defend laws requiring people to wear clothes at all. If we keep going down this road, we'll soon enough find ourselves facing demands that people be allowed to have sex in public. As an abstract (and not very interesting) philosophical question, it's probably worth some thought. As actual matters of public policy: there are all sorts of laws and conventions that can't be easily defended except by saying that there are some things that the vast majority of us don't want to have to see and be around.
One of the weird things I keep noting about transanity is that it does sometimes raise questions that are worth thinking about...even if they are raised in a distorted form, having been reflected in the funhouse mirror of transgender ideology. Does it actually make sense to segregate public restrooms and locker rooms by sex? How about sports? Scholarships and grants? I'm inclined to think that the answer is yes in at least most of those cases...but it's not the most obvious thing in the world. It's just bizarre that the questions end up getting raised as a result of a political faction shriekily demanding a purely linguistic change in the use of the words 'man' and 'woman.'
As for whether there should be laws banning women from exposing their breasts in public--well, that's a perfectly reasonable question. Such laws aren't particularly easy to defend, and perhaps they should be ditched. OTOH, it's also not easy to defend laws requiring people to wear clothes at all. If we keep going down this road, we'll soon enough find ourselves facing demands that people be allowed to have sex in public. As an abstract (and not very interesting) philosophical question, it's probably worth some thought. As actual matters of public policy: there are all sorts of laws and conventions that can't be easily defended except by saying that there are some things that the vast majority of us don't want to have to see and be around.
One of the weird things I keep noting about transanity is that it does sometimes raise questions that are worth thinking about...even if they are raised in a distorted form, having been reflected in the funhouse mirror of transgender ideology. Does it actually make sense to segregate public restrooms and locker rooms by sex? How about sports? Scholarships and grants? I'm inclined to think that the answer is yes in at least most of those cases...but it's not the most obvious thing in the world. It's just bizarre that the questions end up getting raised as a result of a political faction shriekily demanding a purely linguistic change in the use of the words 'man' and 'woman.'
posted by Winston Smith at
10:11 AM
1 Comments:
" As actual matters of public policy: there are all sorts of laws and conventions that can't be easily defended except by saying that there are some things that the vast majority of us don't want to have to see and be around."
If the vast majority of people prefer that the law be in place, isn't it kind of easy to defend though? I mean, if you insist upon it being derived philosophically, hardly any law is going to be an easy case, let's be honest about the state of ethics. If the law is derived democratically though, which it happens to be, this is a no brainer.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home