When does “Gay Right” violate “Straight Right”?

A fool often fails because he thinks what is difficult is easy, and a wise man because he thinks what is easy is difficult…Churton Collins

The reality of the complexity that all the “gay inclusiveness” actions being taken across the world will bring to processes that are otherwise simple became quite apparent to me on my last trip to Europe.

The trigger was the body search I had at one of the security checkpoints before boarding a flight. Somehow, I felt like the search was a bit more than the ordinary…it felt a little too intimate…in short, I felt like my body was being romanced/massaged. Just before you reach other conclusions, I was searched by a man not a woman. After the search, I looked back to be sure and then I realised we were in a more complex world…the world of gay inclusiveness. I was almost tempted to go back and ask the guy that did the search his sexual orientation but being a Nigerian with a Muslim name, I knew that will be a most stupid thing to do…but the thought stuck: when does “gay right” lead to a violation of “straight right”?

Just in case you still haven’t got my drift – when a woman goes to the hospital and asks for a female doctor she needs to be sure she is seeing a real woman and not a woman that will be aroused by her nakedness. So now rather than a simple question of the sex of the doctor, there is need to also ascertain the sexual orientation of the doctor otherwise she may be exposing herself to a “male woman”.

Back to my own airport search experience, I strongly believe my right is violated if my body is searched by a “female man” (we actually need an entry for this in the dictionary) rather than a man – apart from the irritation of the invasion of my privacy that arise from such a search, I believe the element of surprise that this is coming from another man makes is even more annoying. Personally, I will prefer to be searched by a real woman (and this is talking seriously) rather than by a “female man” – at least the search by the woman will be a WYSIWYG (What You See Is What You Get) experience and not the surprising romance by another man.

The real issue here is that in submitting to the desires of the gay rights movement and moving aggressively towards full inclusion of gays in daily life and especially in the workplace we have to give proper consideration to the nature of the work and the implication this may have on stratification plans e.g. Having women screen other women and men screen other men. We may have to reserve such “sexually stratified” jobs for straight people only. It also means that straight people must be vigilant and proactive in protecting their own rights almost as forcefully as the gay right advocates have been pushing for their own right to deviate since it seems we have all surrendered to faith rather than help gay people out of their delusional disorder. I have on a humorous note often asked myself which section of the public toilet a gay “female man” should use – the female wing or the male wing or may be we ought to start creating a gay wing – but this is a discussion for another day.

What I am concerned with today is how we can ensure that the rights of straight people are not violated by a wholesale inclusion of gays in the workplace and in roles that require sexual stratification. Put in other words, there is still a lot that needs straightening out as we move on with gay inclusion in some parts of the world. I don’t know if you share my concerns.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

*