I emailed my doctor last week.
For several reasons I won't bore you with, but the one that got me the reply that made me go, "Oh, fuck that noise," was my request for options for a permanent form of birth control.
Elizabeth is not amused.
I'm pretty sure we've talked about my stance on small humans at some point. I love them. I think they're great. I don't want one 24/7/365. I am more than old enough to be taken seriously when I say that I will not be producing any. (Technically anyone is 'old enough' to be taken seriously on this particular point, it's just that apparently the medical community doesn't like to until you're getting towards being considered 'geriatric' in the baby-making department. I think I'm a bit shy of that still, actually, but I'm also sick of waiting around.) Any old way, the point is that I'm not making babies, I'm not changing my mind, and I'm tired of dealing with birth control on a regular basis. (That regular basis is every five years, yes, but it's a truly unpleasant experience once every five years I could quite happily live without, thank you very much.)
Back to me emailing my doctor. I asked what my options were for a permanent no-babies solution. The first thing you may notice about this inquiry is that it is singular. I am asking what my options are. I do not allude in any way to any other parties who may have an interest in this decision.
So why was the first option presented to me 'your partner can get a vasectomy'?
There was no partner mentioned at all in my email. That's quite an assumption to make straight out the gate. "Oh, just have your partner get the snip!" Okay, fine, that's a viable option for some people, but as there is no one currently in my life who fits the anatomical requirements for said procedure, this was about as useful a suggestion as telling me to get rid of my ganglion cyst by having my mother cut her hand off. ::sings:: One of these things is not like the other... If listing the possibility of putting the burden of remaining childless on the member of the union providing the sperm was meant to be some kind of feminist power play, it fell horrifyingly flat. While I certainly agree that it should always be one of the options presented in the appropriate situation-- because it takes two people to make a baby*--lighting it up in neon and parading it through the streets as Numero Uno is a bad idea for two reasons. One, there does not have to be a sperm-generating partner for a person who can get pregnant to decide they would like to pre-empt that possibility permanently.
And two? Oh, two. And loudly, for the people at the back!
IN THIS DAY AND AGE, IT IS NO LONGER APPROPRIATE TO ASSUME THE GENDER OF A PERSON'S PARTNER BASED ON THE GENDER THEY THEMSELVES PRESENT, OR THAT YOU ASSUME THEY PRESENT.
In conclusion:
1. I do not want babies.
2. I inquired about the possibility of a permanent solution to my birth control needs for myself, by myself. No one else needs to be consulted regarding what I plan to do with my body, and never assume that there is anyone else who might want to be consulted.
3. Just because someone's file says one gender, that may be purely the result of the lack of a suitable box to tick when they filled out their paperwork.
3a. Even if someone's file says one gender and they subscribe to that label, they may not at the same time subscribe to the 'traditionally acceptable' relationship model assigned to that gender.
4. It's not 1950 anymore. Get your shit together.
Photo by @effinbirds
*Or the appropriate biological components and a team of specialists, but for the sake of simplicity I'm just going to stick with the vintage model for purposes of this rant...
