No, but I would think some would take it as a golden opportunity to make sure that the best information gets distributed.

You CAN do that, IF YOU WISH, but it is not your obligation. If my husband says he's Jewish, is it okay for a stranger to ask if he is circumcised? Is he then obligated to "educate" him about Jewish customs? Assuming that because someone is in a minority you are interested in they are then obliged to answer your questions about themselves is a pretty big assumption.

I think if Person A asks Person B any type of personal question and Person B does not want to answer the only polite thing to do is for Person A to drop the subject.

No, but I would think some would take it as a golden opportunity to make sure that the best information gets distributed. "I don't like the assumptions you're making, but I can't be assed to give you better information, go find it yourself, privileged bitch."

The basic problem that I run into, personally, is that being in the minority, there are more of the majority than me. I realize this seems like Obvious Statement, but I mention it because the reason I tend not to choose to be the educator is because I have done it, already, eight billion times before the person walking up, all innocence and good intentions, enters my orbit.

So if I, as the minority, have to be the one to educate the majority, I will have to do it ad inifinitum. I may be the only minority the majority person has ever encountered, but I have encountered many many of her. And probably the last several times, I did explain. But at some point I just can't do it for everyone, at which point, I might refer someone to some good resources available to a person of privilege. That also may include other minorities like me who are less at a point of activist fatigue, and can better continue the education of the (well-meaning, genuinely curious) person.

It's bad enough being repeatedly put in a position of explaining your life to the clueless again and again--it's even worse when it's about something as intimately personal as your genitalia. That's something you save for people you're close to.

It's bad enough being repeatedly put in a position of explaining your life to the clueless again and again--it's even worse when it's about something as intimately personal as your genitalia. That's something you save for people you're close to.

This is a statement with which I instinctively agree wholeheartedly; but then I look at the sheer number of times I've been COMM'd talking about testicles, and wonder where it all went wrong.

but then I look at the sheer number of times I've been COMM'd talking about testicles, and wonder where it all went wrong.

You do talk about them a lot. I should send you over to talk about them in that transgender thread.

In my line of work, transgender issues come up a lot (because M/F marriage allows for immigration but any other combo does not). And the lawyers have a habit of introducing their questions as "I have a client who identifies as male, is pre-op,..." and so on.

A few weeks ago, the rep from Immigration Equality on the listserve stepped in and provided a really informative and helpful post about how focusing on pre-op/post-op is harmful because many transgender persons never have surgery and it is incredibly intrusive to have immigration officials asking questions about the shape of your genitals.

eta: her point was that we lawyers need to train ourselves to not focus on the "op" part and therefore attempt to train immigration officials not to focus on that aspect.

focusing on pre-op/post-op is harmful because many transgender persons never have surgery

Exactly. For instance, lots of female-to-male trans men *do* have top surgery (breast reduction), but don't have bottom surgery, because it's not hugely successful. And there are people who say that that person, then, is not a man, because there is no penis. And that completely negates his lived experience as a man.

(Same thing happens with male-to-female trans women, of course. Their bottom surgery is much more successful, but a lot still don't have it because it's very expensive [to be clear, it's expensive for both sexes], and obviously not covered by insurance. So there are people who say it doesn't matter if she's living as a woman, if she has a penis, she's a man. Which is hugely damaging and leads to a lot of hate crimes.)

You do talk about them a lot. I should send you over to talk about them in that transgender thread.

I don't know, I wouldn't want to derail it. I'd hate to think I was oppressing them with my testicles.

What Steph and Liese and ita said.

So if I, as the minority, have to be the one to educate the minority, I will have to do it ad inifinitum. I may be the only minority the majority person has ever encountered, but I have encountered many many of her.

Following up on this point, if a black woman asks me, Whitey McWhiterson Chick, if she can touch my hair, NBD. It's actually never happened to me. But white people asking to touch black people's hair, or even touching without asking, is ridiculously common and rude.

IMHO, the minority's obligation ends at "It's none of your business." A link is kindness.