She nodded. "That's what we thought," she agreed. "We could have asked through the connection, but that wouldn't have given a lot of time for discussion. Maybe another night?"
"Is she that good?" I asked and she smiled.
"She's nice."
"Well like I said," I repeated, "it's fine with me as long as Jules and Ness are happy with it."
She smiled and laid her head on my chest, holding me, and enveloping me in feelings of love as I drifted off to sleep.
Four a.m. rolled around with remarkable alacrity, and I slipped out of bed almost before I was fully awake.
I decided to go for a run this morning. I'd done a little research on the internet about joining the FBI, and I knew that there was quite a stringent fitness test to pass. I would have to start training with that in mind. It was a while away, but the sooner I started to train for it the better. I was happy enough with my general level of fitness, but I hadn't really been training my upper body much and from what I'd read three of the tests were sit-ups, pull-ups and push-ups. Granted, I could make my life far easier using TK, but that would be a backup plan. I needed to be fit.
I also didn't know what my entry process would be to the FBI. I'd been kind of assuming that I would walk-in on account of my powers but I also knew that there were thousands, if not tens of thousands, of applicants every year. I would be taking one of their slots, so I wanted to deserve it.
Marcia arrived on time and, after breakfast, we all separated to start our days.
Our ethics professor outdid himself with his spying.
"Today," he said, "we are going to discuss something that has been in the news a lot recently. Normally, I am content to let you voice whatever opinions you see fit to, but although I do encourage you to express opinions, I want you to think very carefully about HOW you express those opinions. This is an emotive topic so let's keep our thoughts on the arguments and not allow the debate to degenerate into personal attacks and insults toward each other. If I determine that any of you are indulging in discriminatory behaviour. toward one of your fellow students on the grounds of their opinions on this matter, you will be asked to leave, and you WILL fail this class for the semester."
We all looked at him, wondering exactly what we would be debating that required such a warning at the beginning of the class.
"Gender identity," he continued, "is a personal thing. Gone, and good riddance to them, are the days when a person's gender was wholly denoted by their biological sex. Part of the problem is that some still cannot differentiate between what I consider the three parts of a person's sexual identity. MY opinion is that those are; firstly the sex of that person - and by that I mean their genetic or biological sex. Normally male or female, but there are some born neither or both. Then there is their gender identity. Does that person identify as a male or a female, or neither, or aspects of both, or something else entirely, irrespective of their biology? Finally, there is that person's sexuality. I personally see that as who that person is sexually attracted to. Again, that could be anything from nobody at all in the case of asexual persons, or at the other end of the scale, if you will, pansexual people who are more interested in the individual rather than their specific biology or gender identity. I am not going to entertain any discussions on those whose attractions lie outside our own species.
"If we each lived in a bubble, with no interaction with anyone else, then this would not cause the friction that it does, but we do not. We interact with people on a daily basis. Let's examine one particular group of people that seem to be in the news recently, and they are trans women.
"For clarity, I am going to define trans women as people who were born biologically male, but feel themselves to be female. They may or may not still have male characteristics, male genitalia, or these may have been suppressed or removed by various methods, including surgery.
"There has been a lot of discussion in the media as to whether trans women should be allowed to use female only facilities, access female medical services, participate against females in sporting events. There was also an uproar in the media when Laura Finke, a trans woman, was awarded 'Woman of the year' by USA today.
"I want you to discuss the ethics of this, the possible conflicts between the rights of the individual, i.e. the trans person, and the rights of the populace as a whole. Do they conflict? And if so how can that conflict be resolved.
"Remember - keep it on topic and keep it civil."
I shared a glance with Dana as people started to talk. It was obvious at first that people were trying to be politically correct, but equally obvious that others were becoming upset with some of the views put forward.
Needless to say, it was one of the kumbaya crowd that opened the debate.
"People should be allowed to be whoever they want to be," he began. "If a person feels that they are female, then that should be all that matters. They should be able to do everything a woman can do."
"There was a case in the news recently," someone else rebutted, "where an OB/GYN was sued by a trans woman for refusing to do a pap smear test. How does that make sense since he... sorry she didn't even have the requisite parts?"
"That's not quite accurate," I replied. "She wasn't refused a smear. Rather, she was refused treatment because the clinic said that they didn't accept trans patients. That's very different. Having said that though can you really cite that? The woman in question is a Trans Activist whom, I believe, does more to harm than help the cause. If I remember correctly, she also tried to sue a waxing salon for refusing to wax her male genitalia. They said they were not trained to do it, and the courts agreed.
"What I found more disturbing is that a trans woman was refused medical screening, a prostate cancer check I believe because, despite her having a prostate, she was registered as a woman, and therefore they would only do a PAP smear. Surely that shows that we, as a society, are still institutionally biased against trans people, because our computer systems cannot deal with a woman who may have more complex needs like that."
The professor looked at me, eyebrow raised. Dana spoke.
"All people have rights," she said, "and trans people have to have the right to be who they want to be. There has to be some application of common sense too though. I can understand how some women would be uncomfortable having someone with male genitalia in a communal changing area, for instance. It's a space where people feel vulnerable to start with."
"Now you're just being prejudiced," said kumbaya number 2. "I wouldn't be bothered if a trans woman came into my changing room."
"Don't you think," I interjected, seeing Dana's half smile at being accused of trans prejudice, "that an easier solution would be to make all changing rooms, and bathrooms, gender neutral. Have secure stalls where people can go to do whatever it is they need to do, without being exposed to other people? The fact that it doesn't bother you is almost immaterial because, again, you are an individual. We know that there are enough people that ARE bothered by it for it to be an issue, or else why would we be even talking about it?"
"Does that," asked the professor, "actually answer the question? Or, is it merely a solution to a problem which circumvents the issue? I agree that we can create communal 'safe' spaces, but let's return to the original question."
"An individual's rights cannot supersede the rights of the majority," said someone from the back of the class. "The needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few."
"Thank you, Mr. Spock," said the professor. "Trite as the argument is, and I wonder how long Mr. Slade has been waiting to use that particular gem, it does have some merit. Can the rights of the individual ever supersede those of the majority?"
"Obviously, yes," said another student from the other side of the classroom.
"Justify," said the professor. "Examples?"
She thought for a minute.
"A plane crashes in a remote location," she began, and the professor smiled.
"Yes," he said. "You are going to say that the rights of the injured survivor not to be killed and eaten by the others supersedes their rights to life. But, in actual fact, do they? Do the math. One person dies, and six live, or all die including the injured survivor. Do, in this case, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one?
"Again, I don't want to get sidetracked into that particular debate. However, there is validity to your argument. But we're not talking about life-or-death situations here. We're talking about sharing a changing room or competing in sports. Are there any circumstances in such cases where an individual's rights outweigh those of the masses?"
"It's not about rights," I said. "It's about attitudes."
"Explain," he said.