If a society chooses simultaneously to refuse to look at individuals as individuals, and to adopt absurd notions about whether traditional groupings of individuals are based in reality or empty convention, what's a guy to do when he finds his insurance company wants to charge him more for auto coverage than it would charge a woman?
The story reminds me of the old Jeff Foxworthy routine about answering the door to a sheriff's deputy who wants to arrest him if he can't pay some outstanding tickets. He protests he's broke. The deputy asks if he can write a check. "No, I can't write a--wait, hold on. A check? Well, heck, yeah, I can write you a check. I thought you wanted money."
I wonder how many more people will find they're no longer prepared to pay the (actual, monetary) price just to legally remain their assigned gender? He'll have access to a lot of opportunities now -- scholarships, training programs, leadership programs, diversity recruitment opportunities... and, of course, lower insurance rates for the rest of his, ah, her life.
ReplyDeleteThere was a John Varley novel (short story? This was decades ago) that had as part of its premise the ease of bouncing back and forth between the two genders (lacked imagination, did Varley) almost at will--it did take a few hours for the routine surgery.
ReplyDeleteIn today's utopia, it's a matter of instantaneous choice to pick among the most convenient of the plethora of genders. And there's no reason to accept any of those choices as permanent.
David is in the vanguard. Or the avante garde, and he, too, is showing the absurdity of the thing.
Eric Hines
Seems I read about some "trans" genders who were cleaning up in women's sports? Extrapolate that out a bit and we will start to see why there were separate leagues to start with.
ReplyDeleteOf course the only solution is for insurance companies to do away with the gender difference in rates. Why it's almost as if they hadn't really thought this 'gender is a construct' business all through.
ReplyDeleteI always wondered what kind of mindset it required to draft the ACA to permit invidious distinctions between men and women and between smokers and non-smokers, but to draw the line there. Reality-based medical underwriting is only partly evil?
ReplyDelete