Monroerising.com

I guess I should stop being surprised by the utter absurdity of living in a post-modern world.  The complete lack of rationality, the disdain for any kind of traditional values, the refusal to make qualitative value judgments (except to condemn any form of intolerance); all these things bring us to a state of affairs where bill number 6584-A passes in the New York Assembly by a margin of 108-34.

This bill prohibits discrimination based upon “gender identity or expression.”  In addition, it adds “gender identity and expression” to the state’s hate crimes law.

 The bill defines “gender identity or expression” as follows: “having or being perceived as having a gender identity, self-image, appearance, behavior or expression whether or not that gender identity, self-image, appearance, behavior or expression is different from that traditionally associated with the sex assigned to that person at birth.” 

 I invite all readers to parse out that sentence and offer some reasonable explanation for its contents.  Presumably, the intent of the bill is to protect the transgender community from discrimination, but the attempt to define transgender shows the absurdity of the entire concept. 

From a scientific perspective, gender is a pretty concrete notion.  Human beings either have girl parts or boy parts, and that is not based upon some assignment at birth.  The presence or absence of a Y chromosome predetermines an individual’s gender upon conception.

In defiance of all logic, this bill makes gender into an amorphous concept based upon “expression” and “perception.”  A person’s gender can change from one day to the next depending upon how that person expresses themself on that particular day. 

Accordingly, if a man was “expressing” himself as a woman , and decided that he wanted to use the women’s locker room at the gym, the gym owner could be sued for refusing this man access to the women’s locker room.  A woman who was “expressing” herself as man on a particular day could use the men’s room (leading to a significant amount of confusion if you happened to be in the men’s room at the time with your young child).

From a practical perspective, this bill would likely throw New York’s anti-discrimination laws into chaos.  Proving discrimination is difficult enough when you are dealing with immutable characteristics such as race or (actual biological) gender.  It makes it completely unworkable when you are dealing with a characteristic based entirely on expressions and perceptions that can change from one day to the next.

I will refrain from a further a parade of horribles in the interest of time, but before I sign off, I do want to share how the Rochester area delegation voted on this measure:

Errigo (Republican): NO

Gantt (Democrat): NO

Hawley (Republican): NO

John (Democrat): YES

Koon (Democrat): YES

Morelle (Democrat): YES

Reilich (Republican): NO

It is an utter disgrace that the only democrat with the courage to vote against this monstrosity was David Gantt.  Although we here at Monroerising have taken Assemblyman Gantt to task in the past, I commend him for this vote.

As of today, the republican Senate has exercised a degree of rationality, and has refused to pass the bill.  Of course, if the Senate ever turns democratic, these are the sort of bills that will pass on a regular basis (thankfully, the legislators are only in session for half the year, take a lot of vacations, and rarely actually vote on bills).

Tags: Articles, Occam //