![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
eftychia at 03:16pm on 2004-03-03Something I have to get off my chest so I can get back to more personally urgent items on my to-do list...
From a Planet Out article about a recent Ohio court ruling that a heterosexual couple may not marry under state law if one member is transsexual:
Although Jacob Nash was born female, he changed his sex in the late 1990s and obtained a revised birth certificate from his home state in Massachusetts. Nonetheless, the Ohio courts have continued to ignore this legal document in denying him the right to marry his partner, Erin Barr.
In a Dec. 31 decision, which is expected to be appealed, Judge Diane V. Grendell insisted that the U.S. Constitution's Full Faith and Credit Clause might require Ohio to respect Nash's Massachusetts birth certificate, but it does not require Ohio to take the extra step of declaring Nash a male under Ohio law.
The judge turned to a dictionary and picked biological definitions of "male" and "female" (I don't know about her edition of Webster's New Collegiate, but my 1967 Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary has some wiggle room) and decided that since Jacob Nash lacked "organs to produce spermatozoa for fertilizing ova", he must be female. Note that this conveniently ignores the fact that (assuming Nash is post-op) he also no longer meets the definition of female the judged used: "the sex that produces ova or bears young," Since the decision was based on a prohibition of "same sex" marriage, and according to the definitions the on which the judge based her decision Nash is neither male nor female, how is he the "same sex as" his fiancee? (According to the article, the judge did not base her decision on the argument that a female can only marry a male and vice-versa, only that a female cannot marry a female and a male cannot marry a male. So if Nash is neither according to these definitions, then there should be no prohibition against this wedding. But, of course, that's based on my reading a short description of the judge's decision, not the text of the decision itself, so I may be missing crucial details of the judge's opinion.)
It is interesting (though unsurprising) that judge Grendell (at least here) considers female to be the default sex -- if one fails the test for "male" then one is female regardless of whether one meets the definition of female otherwise. I do wonder whether she would have ruled the same way if the petitioners had been a born-male and a m2f transsexual. Would she have used the same test -- "can't produce sperm; must be female" -- or would she have flipped the entire argument -- "can't produce ova or bear young; can't be what she claims to be"? That is, is this
- a culturally ingrained gender bias that says "not male" is an inferior social status and therefore claims to maleness are subject to closer scrutiny than claims of femaleness, or
- a matter of finding excuses to reject the very notion of a sex-change?
Anyhow, chalk it up as yet another case that would be so much less complicated if governments stopped trying so hard to discriminate on the basis of sex.
(no subject)
I mean, a child's view of the human condition is that there are "boy people" and "girl people". A family consists of a Mommy, who's a big girl, and a Daddy, who's a big boy, and the children. Nice, simple, structured, and uncomplicated.
Now along come people who say "Wait a minute! It's possible to have a family with two Mommies, or two Daddies too! Those families should have the same rights as any other!" Until now those people whose entire world-views were built on the foundation of the Default Family Model could safely pretend that any other combinations could legitimately exist ("oh, it's just those people, nobody worth speaking of"). When the issue is dropped in front of them so they can't ignore it any more, they freak out -- the entire foundation of their social world-view is suddenly threatened.
Enter another childhood concept: when the law is re-examined and shown not to preclude gay marriage, the question comes up, "So gays can marry, right?". The folks rushing to push through constitutional amendments are basically screaming "NO! BECAUSE I SAID SO!"
Throw in gender ambiguity and you have a real bomb on your hands. Remember what I said about "boy people" and "girl people"? This is one of the first distinguishing characteristics that children learn about, and they learn that any given individual must fall squarely in one category or the other. It's like we must know this fact before we can process anything else about them. Literally. Ever wonder why the very first words spoken about a newborn almost always are to announce its gender ("It's a boy!")?
People who can't be neatly slotted into one category or the other are either frightening to most folks or they're perceived as not-quite-people. "Bu-bu-but you have to be one or the other! Which are you?!" The mere fact that individuals can exist who have no simple answer to this question shakes their worldview even more fundamentally than non-standard family structures does. This is why there was a period where if an intersexual child was born it would be "surgically assigned" to a conventional gender; anything else would be too terrible for the parents to bear. The fact that such forced gender assignment was terrible for the children to bear is only now becoming apparent.
Governments are made up of people. People are fundamentally fucked-up on issues of gender and family, at least in American society. Our fair, representative democracy is just doing its rightful job in reflecting that attitude in its policies and practices [ptui!]
(no subject)
a tangent
A tangential question: how do cases like this even end up in the courts? When we applied for our marriage license no one asked for birth certificates; we applied in person, the clerk looked at us (and mentally checked off "yup, one male and one female"), we answered some questions about mechanical junk like citizenship, and we were issued a license. If one of us had been a transsexual, nothing in the normal process would have turned it up.
So what happened here? Did some relative who has it in for them challenge the license, or what?
I AGREE
I'm confused
I'm tired and maybe too confused......
I agree that something is odd here. How would the clerk know about either party's birth certificate gender determination? Perhaps this couple intentionally set themselves up as a test case? Of course, you can see by my earlier entries that I think this whole issue is ridiculous and unconstitutional.
I do find it interesting that Christians are discriminating against other Christians based on their Christianity. Not that that is new; my experience is that if you put a group of 25 Christians together, they will find a way to splinter into some number of smaller groups, all claiming that they are following "true" Christianity and that they alone know the one true word of Christ.
I'm relieved to never have been a Christian (at least in THIS life-time) because I wouldn't be able to tolerate being lumped into these groups or assumed to be a supporter of all this bigotry.
Again, I'm astonished at how some people are violating the fundamental (yep, chose that word on purpose) principles of being American in the name of being a good Christian, while thinking of both of those terms as synonymous.
All I can say is that I hope some of the GLBT etc. individuals out there who are directly affected by all of this can at least see that they have some support from people who don't really identify as GLBT and I hope that some of these rabid moralists see that they don't have universal support. Not that the opinion of one such as I would count in their eyes.
One woman, one vote. *GRIN*
gobsmacked
this can't possibly be my real planet. on planet merde, they just don't do dumb shit like this.
This is so sick
Then there are Turner's Syndrome women born with no eggies or the wherewithal to produce them. Adolescence has to be induced. I don't remember how well it works.
There are men born with androgen insensitivity syndrome, which means they're XY but look like XX. They're just raised as female. I forget how well that works, too.
Then there are those born with ambiguous genitalia. Doctors pick a gender and assign at will.
And little slip-up during cicumcision. (cringe) Well, that gets you automatically transsexed. Or used to. I don't know what they do now.
I'm just remembering from a book I read 20+yrs ago.
My point is that these problems are nothing a newborn can have chosen, and if we're going to deny infertile people the right to marry when they find love, based purely on that, we're a truly sick culture. But I knew that already. Preach to choir. Rant concluded.
And then there's the judge's name. O Beowulf monsterlike.
Re: This is so sick
Yes I was going to add this ...
From what I've read/seen on tv, the doctors pick the gender for which they can most easily create the genitalia with (cosmetic) surgery, no matter what the DNA says. These kids' gender is totally out of their hands; they have no choice since their surgery is done as babies. From the show I saw, I could even imagine doctors could do this without telling the parents the full story.
In addition to infertile people, there are always people who plan not to have children.
wow
I had hoped to breed, a couple times. But I needed the right partner, and enough income to get us through if I had a hard pregnancy and had to stay still. Didn't happen by my deadline. I just cheer for my friends who are brave enough to have done it and produced offspring that are cool.
Having kids is scary if you think about it enough. You never know what's going to happen or what you're going to get. Glad my mom just did it, though. Different place, different time. ^shrug^
Re: This is so sick
Badly.
"As Nature Made Him" by John Colapinto relates the history of the child. They tried really really hard to indoctrinate the child into being female. It failed.
He's now living as a man and much happier.
Apparently, gender identity is more nature than nurture.
-m
(no subject)
I sort of remembered also the circumcision slip-up boys having a hard time adjusting.
And then there are those of us who are perpetually in a gray area. A sort of (uh, what?) place.
(no subject)
When I was physically transistioning from M to F I reached an in between area. It was an interesting headspace - being bits of both, and I could see why some people get stuck at that point (aside the lack of money to finish the job.)
-m
Congratulations
My perpetual problem is not understanding people as anything but thinking (sometimes) monkeys, or myself as either M or F. (check trews) Still look F. Situation normal.
I had a lover in college who did that transition, she had problems with funds to finish the job, and parents. And one now who would, but (TMI).
I snarl fiercely for the right of anyone to be whatever gender they want and any sex they want.
Or maybe I'm just vague on the whole damned business. ^smile^ It's none o' mine. Umm, why do people care?
You have told me something deep and new. I thank you. Love, good luck and godspeed to ye.
Re: This is so sick
I'm not fertile any more either, for surgical reasons. And I was never terribly convincing as either a male or a female. I perfer to interact with other people as just a "person." Drives most folks nuts.
My sister had to be jumpstarted at eighteen. She has two kids. So you never know.
(no subject)