• news
  • WEDNESDAY AUGUST 22 2007 4:00 PM

Sex Change for a Driver's License?

Submitted by Rahodeb

Edited by Rahodeb



Call me crazy, but were I to require a sex change, Saudi Arabia probably isn't the place I'd want to get it done. I'd go to Colorado, or Thailand, or even Brazil, where they're giving them away for free. But if, by some cruel twist of fate, I were a citizen of Saudi Arabia--a female citizen--I suppose I could risk my loins to a scalpel-wielding Saudi surgeon, especially if it meant being awarded a driver's license. Wait, what? That's absurd! Who would get a sex change in the hopes of obtaining a driver's license??

19-year-old "Myriam" seems to have done just that.

A 19-year-old Saudi Arabian woman, Myriam, has undergone a successful sex-change operation in Jeddah and now, with her new name of Khaled, aspires for just one thing: a driving licence.

Okay, so--"driving licence" here must be code for "escape from violent, inhuman treatment and discrimination." Right? I mean, surely Myriam/Khaled couldn't offer a quote on the abuse of women's rights in Saudi Arabia to a Saudi Arabian newspaper, so heshe played it safe and sited a license to drive as a legitimate motivating factor. Um.

"I entered (the hospital) with the abaya (traditional women's garment) and I came out with thub, ghotra and ogal, the white tunic and hat worn by men," Myriam/Khaled said.

Also code. Translates to: "I entered with my breasts, vagina, uterus, and ovaries, and came out without them." I mean, really--she's 19? She can't have gone through much in the way of hormone therapy, can she? Was this a sex change operation, or a mastectomy and hysterectomy? Will she be seen as a man, worthy of a driver's license, or a freak, deserving of shame and banishment?

  • PERMALINK
  • PRINT
  • Digg This
  • Email To A Friend
 

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3

Next

Comments
Max16Characters

Max16Characters

Korea, Republic Of
March 2003

AUG 23, 2007 10:10 AM

Imagician said:
Seems I've touched a nerve with some. There are "facts" being thrown around that simply aren't true or, at least, are not as clear cut as they are being stated. However, I'm not going to keep repeating my argument as I've stated it about as clearly as I can and I stand by it. It's a hard line I'm taking, I know, but I honestly believe that Imposing one cultural/religious morality on another is simply universally wrong. It causes cultural/religious tension and is precisely the reason things like 9/11 and terrorism occur.

One point I will clarify though, is that not once have I said I agree with female circumcision. I do think it is unnecessary and, often, cruel. So, I think to come to the conclusion that I hate women is a little misguided and frankly not true. And, with that, I'm moving onsmile My apologies for ninja'ing the original discussion.



Seems to me you're a giant douche.

Also: DOUBLE YOO TEE EFF? Stopping women from getting their clits chopped off=9/11? Holy shit...i don't even know how to respond to that.

Roethke

Roethke

SUICIDEGIRL

California, USA

AUG 23, 2007 11:36 AM

Imagician said:
Lastly, you can't compare the excise of the clit to the removal of the entire penis as many women who have been circumcised, even type 3, are still sexually functional and able to achieve orgasm. However, considering this is practiced in regions where sex is generally had for only two reasons (procreation and male pleasure) and women's pleasure is generally unimportant, i'm not sure it makes that much of a difference anyway. It's only when we storm in from our enlightened moral high ground and convince them that what's been done to them isn't "right" that they have any notion of it at all. Again, who are we to judge?


A woman can have pleasure without a man. But cutting off her external genitalia, she cannot. It does make a difference to her experience, and does make a difference even if she will never know what she missed out on.


Gringo

Gringo

Spokane, WA
May 2006

AUG 23, 2007 12:00 PM

Imagician said:
One point I will clarify though, is that not once have I said I agree with female circumcision. I do think it is unnecessary and, often always , cruel.


Fixed.

pookaa

pookaa

Cleveland, OH
December 2005

AUG 23, 2007 12:58 PM


FGM law.. a fucked up attempt to regulate our own culture through the guise of another's.....


I also agree that we shouldn't regulate other peoples cultures, mainly because the more power we allow ourselves to believe we have the more control our government has over us. By allowing them to enforce our laws and beliefs on other countries we aid our government in becoming a dictatorship. While any form of unwanted mutilation, cultural practice or oppression, especially to women, is awful and unfortunate the change needs to come from within that cultures people. Our only role as outsiders, if we feel the need to change things, should be to support their efforts if needed and wanted.

Unfortunatly, I am also very opposed to any sort of violence or oppression of women... so this makes it a tough issue to debate... confused

Fauna

Fauna

SUICIDEGIRL

USA

AUG 23, 2007 02:07 PM

Aside from whats right and what's wrong, there are health/medical reasons for male circumcision. None for female.

Am I right or am I wrong with this?

Gringo

Gringo

Spokane, WA
May 2006

AUG 23, 2007 02:14 PM

Fauna said:
Aside from whats right and what's wrong, there are health/medical reasons for male circumcision. None for female.

Am I right or am I wrong with this?


I think that's all myth. If I remember correctly, circumcisions were originally a religious ritual.

I think the religious reasons were later replaced with the belief that a circumcised penis is cleaner or easier to clean.

BurningKrome

BurningKrome

San Jose, CA
April 2005

AUG 23, 2007 09:32 PM

TheGringo said:

Fauna said:
Aside from whats right and what's wrong, there are health/medical reasons for male circumcision. None for female.

Am I right or am I wrong with this?


I think that's all myth. If I remember correctly, circumcisions were originally a religious ritual.

I think the religious reasons were later replaced with the belief that a circumcised penis is cleaner or easier to clean.


In fairness, it was considered to be for health. Even in the religious sense, a huge portion of the old testament's guidelines and rituals were based in cleanliness and the prevention of disease. Circumcision was considered the covenant with God, but was also represented heavily in the sections for disease prevention.

In the early modern era, it was continued because it was believed to reduce the risk of infection...however, all evidence has since shown that to be untrue.


BurningKrome

BurningKrome

San Jose, CA
April 2005

AUG 23, 2007 09:38 PM

Imagician said:
However, I'm not going to keep repeating my argument as I've stated it about as clearly as I can...


We don't want you to repeat your argument...we want you to defend it against very reasonable criticism. Inability to do so simply means it wasn't well thought out in the first place. wink


Fauna

Fauna

SUICIDEGIRL

USA

AUG 24, 2007 08:13 AM

Ok, so I'm not totally out to lunch.

Thanks biggrin

Twelve

Twelve

Bay City, MI
April 2007

AUG 25, 2007 04:10 PM

Imagician said:
Seems I've touched a nerve with some. There are "facts" being thrown around that simply aren't true or, at least, are not as clear cut as they are being stated. However, I'm not going to keep repeating my argument as I've stated it about as clearly as I can and I stand by it. It's a hard line I'm taking, I know, but I honestly believe that Imposing one cultural/religious morality on another is simply universally wrong. It causes cultural/religious tension and is precisely the reason things like 9/11 and terrorism occur.



Here is the thing:

Your position posits that "it's okay because it's their culture."
So all cultures have equally valid cultural beliefs.
Then a culture that believes only it's own ideals are valid has an equally valid position.

Your position is contradictory and therefore wrong. Unless you're going to break out Perspectivism, but I don't think that's what you're arguing.

freshprncebelair

freshprncebelair

Ellicott City, MD
June 2004

AUG 26, 2007 12:54 AM

BurningKrome said:

TheGringo said:

Fauna said:
Aside from whats right and what's wrong, there are health/medical reasons for male circumcision. None for female.

Am I right or am I wrong with this?


I think that's all myth. If I remember correctly, circumcisions were originally a religious ritual.

I think the religious reasons were later replaced with the belief that a circumcised penis is cleaner or easier to clean.


In fairness, it was considered to be for health. Even in the religious sense, a huge portion of the old testament's guidelines and rituals were based in cleanliness and the prevention of disease. Circumcision was considered the covenant with God, but was also represented heavily in the sections for disease prevention.

In the early modern era, it was continued because it was believed to reduce the risk of infection...however, all evidence has since shown that to be untrue.




It does however reduce the risk of contracting/spreading HIV

_Elichrusos

_Elichrusos

Australia
November 2004

AUG 26, 2007 07:29 AM

I love how y'all keep calling the freshly en-dude-ed dude "she". whatever

PointBlank

PointBlank

New York, NY
November 2004

SEP 01, 2007 05:11 PM

Imagician said:
So it's up to you to choose which cultural practices are and are not acceptable based on what? U.S cultural morality or religious morality? That's sure as hell not something I'd base rational judgement on...
.


Um, the subjugation of (and forcible injury) of one group by another is simply wrong, no matter what the culture. Try to defend slavery using your same, braindead "logic".

It's really not difficult to understand.

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3

Next

featured interviews