If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(AZ Family)   The world's first pregnant man is currently trying to convince the courts that he and his wife aren't the same sex so that he can legally divorce her   (azfamily.com) divider line 137
    More: Followup, Courts of Arizona, pregnant man, dictionary definitions, superior courts  
•       •       •

8597 clicks; posted to Main » on 29 Jan 2013 at 6:45 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



137 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-29 08:20:44 AM

taurusowner: See which one has XX chromosomes and which one (if any) has XY chromosomes. Make the decision from there. No need to involve any social perception or "gender identity" nonsense. Use some high school level physiology. Human females have XX, and human males have XY. Yes, there are disorders, such as Klinefelter syndrome, where there can be mutated combinations. But that is a disorder, not a new species or a normal combination of chromosomes. The fact still remains: the correct human female has XX chromosomes and the correct human male has XY. Do a simple test of these two people and see what their chromosomes are. If they both have XX, they're both female.


* this, sick of this transgender crap and the pandering she is not a he and will never be a he. unless ofcourse XY.
 
2013-01-29 08:26:19 AM
They should go to a state stupid enough to believe that IT is a man and get a divorce or where same sex is legal. Arizona folks aren't that stupid.
 
2013-01-29 08:26:43 AM
Anyone else notice that the potential legal problems of gay marriage (polygamy, turtle sex, oppression of the Christian minorities), are not only hypothetical at best, but in fact, dwarfed by the actual and current legal problems of NOT allowing gay marriage. Such as this case here, adoption by a gay spouse of the other spouses biological child, hospital visitation, family insurance plans, inheritance, and lying to the IRS (are you married - answer yes to the state, no to the feds, and swear that both answers are true and legally binding) to name just a few.
 
2013-01-29 08:29:51 AM
I don't think this is the first pregnant ftm. It's the first attention whore one though.

And the judge is violating the full faith and credit clause by not granting a divorce because their marriage license was a regular one, not a same sex one.
 
2013-01-29 08:31:02 AM
Additional, full faith and credit should apply to same sex anyway. Iowa had gay divorces before gay marriages.
 
2013-01-29 08:31:47 AM

SnarfVader: It's legally as simple as checking the sex on his birth certificate. If it says male, case closed. Grant the divorce. The Arizona judge is just grandstanding at that point.

/Yes, you can change the sex on your birth certificate.
//Gay marriage has nothing to do with this.


Actually, gay marriage has tons to do with this.

Because if it's legal to marry any person, the question of gender need never to come up in divorce proceedings. This would be a non-issue, because the judge wouldn't have asked, questioned, or cared about it.

The courts just need to apply the same standard they applied in Loving v. Virginia, and it'll be over. There is no difference between gay marriage and interracial marriage, both are normal, and both bother bigots. Some of those bigots even hide behind religion, in both cases.
 
2013-01-29 08:32:58 AM
The fact that this is the first lesbian to ever get a man-makeover, then later get pregnant and bear children is actually quite interesting. Not. Fark you, news.
 
2013-01-29 08:33:46 AM

SgtArkie: taurusowner: See which one has XX chromosomes and which one (if any) has XY chromosomes. Make the decision from there. No need to involve any social perception or "gender identity" nonsense. Use some high school level physiology. Human females have XX, and human males have XY. Yes, there are disorders, such as Klinefelter syndrome, where there can be mutated combinations. But that is a disorder, not a new species or a normal combination of chromosomes. The fact still remains: the correct human female has XX chromosomes and the correct human male has XY. Do a simple test of these two people and see what their chromosomes are. If they both have XX, they're both female.

* this, sick of this transgender crap and the pandering she is not a he and will never be a he. unless ofcourse XY.


What if one of them has is XXY?
 
2013-01-29 08:35:09 AM
FFS, you can't have it both ways man. Top half a man, bottom half a woman, but you still want to be recognized as a man? WTF? And have kids with your female reproductive organs? Sorry, you don't get to have it both ways. Get male junk and you will be as close to a "man" as they can make you medically, Until then, you are a woman with a beard and a male chest.
 
2013-01-29 08:37:09 AM
I'm not sure I see the problem. If the law recognizes them as married, they can be divorced. If the law recognizes them both as female, they aren't married in Arizona and thus have their marriage annulled by the state. Same outcome.
 
2013-01-29 08:37:48 AM
So, did he fark himself or what?
 
2013-01-29 08:39:51 AM

DarkVader: SnarfVader: It's legally as simple as checking the sex on his birth certificate. If it says male, case closed. Grant the divorce. The Arizona judge is just grandstanding at that point.

/Yes, you can change the sex on your birth certificate.
//Gay marriage has nothing to do with this.

Actually, gay marriage has tons to do with this.

Because if it's legal to marry any person, the question of gender need never to come up in divorce proceedings. This would be a non-issue, because the judge wouldn't have asked, questioned, or cared about it.

The courts just need to apply the same standard they applied in Loving v. Virginia, and it'll be over. There is no difference between gay marriage and interracial marriage, both are normal, and both bother bigots. Some of those bigots even hide behind religion, in both cases.


True, but what I meant was that this particular case is not a same sex marriage. I believe the couple was married in Oregon. Oregon requires a birth certificate for marriage. Unfortunately, same sex marriage is still illegal there. Therefore, it's not a same sex marriage to begin with. The Arizona judge is wrong to question his sex in the first place.

I would certainly rather have same sex marriage legal in all states. It would actually simplify things.
 
2013-01-29 08:41:08 AM
How have they been filing their state income taxes? Married filing jointly? Gotta give the divorce.

I have to question how this would have come up before the judge if he had kept his condition on the down low. Don't be an attention whore about "pregnant man" and as long as all the paperwork is in order, and the biatch isn't being ugly about the whole divorce thing, the judge is never the wiser that he used to be she.
 
2013-01-29 08:41:28 AM

LazarusLong42: I'm not sure I see the problem. If the law recognizes them as married, they can be divorced. If the law recognizes them both as female, they aren't married in Arizona and thus have their marriage annulled by the state. Same outcome.


(Ignoring the ridiculousness of prohibiting people of any two genders from getting married.)
 
2013-01-29 08:42:44 AM
Thomas is causing her/his own problem here. She made her change to a man legally in a different state as well as the marriage. After moving to Arizona, didn't check on the laws involving sex change and marriage when they arrived. She legally became a man in a different state than Arizona and got married in another state than Arizona. Now, Arizona didn't question another state's laws marrying these two people, but Arizona is expected to handle a divorce on something that may not have been legal in AZ. This judge has to handle things according to AZ law not Hawaii where all this started. I am with the judge on this, changing a piece of paper means nothing. It is NOT a man, baby. It is a boobless woman, sir. She delivered three children vaginally while on paper a man. I don't hate her, I am just tired of her acting like she did something special. Thomas, the smug pregnant "man".
 
2013-01-29 08:47:23 AM
It is cases like this that makes me think that we need to change from gender to sex in the legal system. And not to have it as m or f but in fact be done by XX or XY, this way it could include XXX for down syndrome and etc. It should be 4 character wide to except all forms of sex.
 
2013-01-29 08:47:39 AM

kim jong-un: Except...if neither of these particular people fit into those conditions then..gasp! that has nothing to do with this particular case. Do a blood test. If one of these two people have a non-XX/XY disorder, than go from there. But if they are both XX, than the fact that non XX/XY disorders exist has absolutely nothing to do with anything in this case. This case is about two human females. You can insert as much "identity" drama into this as you want, but the physical facts remain: they're both female. Approach this particular case with that fact (as would be proven by a gene test) as the starting point.

Except, while that may not be the situation in this case, it is a flaw in your argument that you want us to ignore. You can't claim a universal truth, and also claim exceptions.


Are you the amputee who rails against those restroom signs featuring two-legged people?
 
2013-01-29 08:48:05 AM

Bungles: Molavian: Bungles: You're making an awful lot of presumptions here about a medical history you know nothing about.

Pretty sure pregnant means that's a chick.


Only a few of the non-XX and non-XY conditions make you infertile. Is someone who is XXXXY and pregnant a "chick"?

If that's the case, it suggests that we're not talking sex chromozomes here, but physical genital manifestation.

But then what's the relatively common condition of being a hermaphrodite?

People like to pretend this is some sort of black and white thing, when only a little though shows it really isn't.


Don't forget that XX males (de la Chapelle) and XY females (XY gonadal dysgenesis, complete androgen insensitivity) do exist naturally, noy just as transgendered people They are externally the opposite sex to what their chromosomes say and usually have normal secondary sex characteristics, and many don't realize it until they try to have kids. I've heard of some XY females who have been able to carry pregnancies to term (some have functional uteri) using donor eggs.

Even defining biological sex isn't as easy as people think it is, without even taking the variability of gender identity into account.
 
2013-01-29 08:50:29 AM
The real issue here is how surprised we should be that these two lovebirds couldn't make of. It's like Brad and Jen all over again!
 
2013-01-29 08:53:44 AM

kim jong-un: Except, while that may not be the situation in this case, it is a flaw in your argument that you want us to ignore. You can't claim a universal truth, and also claim exceptions.

If you say "Either this or that, but nothing else", you can't then respond "Well, that other situation is something else, but I don't want to factor that in because it blows holes in my worldview"


That's not it at all. Take a blood sample, if it is XX they are female, XY, they are male. I don't care what kind of farked up delusions you have in your head, you can't argue with basic biology. Should that woman who had surgery to look like a doll be sealed in a plastic case and sold by Matel? No, because she's a human being despite her mental disorder that makes her want to be a doll. IF one of these people has a chromosomal disorder we can go from there, but your argument seems to be that since that occurance is a statistically tiny portion of the population and since transgender people are a statistically tiny portion of the population, then those two must significantly overlap, making it likely that transgenered people have a chromosomal disorder. But since that conclusion does not at all follow from those given facts, it would be much wiser to go back to the original theory and test to see if they are a member of the statistically significant sexes. If they are, case closed.
 
2013-01-29 09:01:49 AM

Pvt Joker: [content8.flixster.com image 360x202]

I want to have babies.


Stan/Loretta can have the RIGHT to have babies.
 
2013-01-29 09:01:51 AM
There is no such thing as a pregnant man

If reproduction is not the base standard for what makes a female, then what is?
 
2013-01-29 09:02:30 AM
Why do these guys care so much about whether or not it's a legal divorce instead of just a retroactive dismissal of their marriage?

I could understand if it was a messy divorce and one of them wanted to make sure the alimony checks kept coming in, but in that case I'd expect one of them to want the divorce and the other not to.  Seems like if they're both into it, they could just work something out?

Maybe has something to do with having the female retain legal parenthood of the kid?
 
2013-01-29 09:03:16 AM

LesterB: And I guess I better clarify that I'm not agreeing with beautifulbob's opinion that the law should not recognize transgendered individuals as the gender they are, rather than the gender they were born as. Just pointing out that the law has always invented its own fictions as needed.
Of course, why the law needs to discriminate between genders at all is an interesting question too.


The law needs to know what prison to send them to.
 
2013-01-29 09:09:37 AM
Personally I think a rational response is, "Who gives a shiat who marries who?".
Doesn't affect me, doesn't affect you. Not my business, not your business.
I couldn't care less what Steve and Bob or Sally and Sue do.

I'm not pro-gay (NTTAWWT) or anything but simply pro-who-farking-cares.
Seriously, mind your own goddamn business and get on with life.
The day people stop being so obsessed and engrossed in other people's lives the better things will be for everyone.
 
2013-01-29 09:09:44 AM

doubled99: There is no such thing as a pregnant man

If reproduction is not the base standard for what makes a female, then what is?


Would like a word


www.savethesea.org
 
2013-01-29 09:11:56 AM

octopied: Just give them the divorce.

That said, the "pregnant man" thing was ridiculous/hilarious. It was treated like a medical miracle by some, which if course, it was not.


I mean, it was impressive that the hormone treatments didn't render him permanently infertile, but yeah.
 
2013-01-29 09:14:47 AM
world's first pregnant man

Pat Califia would like a word.
 
2013-01-29 09:15:23 AM

Doctor Jan Itor: Most men I know don't have a working uterus.


You need to get out more.
 
2013-01-29 09:16:52 AM
This is why we need to let anyone marry anyone else. Who cares what they are? But for sake of common sense, their driver's license should say XX or XY. That doesn't change depending on what gender role they want to take on.
 
2013-01-29 09:17:25 AM
I just think it's odd that we live in a world where our sexuality is determined at birth, but our gender can be changed at will.
 
2013-01-29 09:28:58 AM

taurusowner: See which one has XX chromosomes and which one (if any) has XY chromosomes. Make the decision from there. No need to involve any social perception or "gender identity" nonsense. Use some high school level physiology. Human females have XX, and human males have XY. Yes, there are disorders, such as Klinefelter syndrome, where there can be mutated combinations. But that is a disorder, not a new species or a normal combination of chromosomes. The fact still remains: the correct human female has XX chromosomes and the correct human male has XY. Do a simple test of these two people and see what their chromosomes are. If they both have XX, they're both female.


See, you're problem is that you're using science and logic in a situation where a woman willfully mutilated her body to pretend she was a man and then decided she wanted kids.
 
2013-01-29 09:30:03 AM
This story is 6 pounds of weird in a 5 pound box.

I hope the couple gets what they want.
 
2013-01-29 09:31:37 AM
"'Only 21 percent of female-to-male transsexuals actually get a hysterectomy,' Cantor said. 'That means 80 percent keep their reproductive organs.'"

Math: who needs that rubbish?
 
2013-01-29 09:31:50 AM

durbnpoisn: For anyone that didn't read the article. He is "legally a man" now. But only legally.


Considering that marriage and divorce are legal institutions, that shouldn't make a whit of difference.
 
2013-01-29 09:32:31 AM

Ron Mexico's Revenge: I just think it's odd that we live in a world where our sexuality is determined at birth, but our gender can be changed at will.


You only think it's odd because you're confusing the terms "gender" and "sex". If you understand that they have distinct, though frequently correlated, meanings, then there's nothing odd about it.
 
2013-01-29 09:33:32 AM
What a dick.
 
2013-01-29 09:35:03 AM

MidnightSkulker: Bungles: Molavian: Bungles: You're making an awful lot of presumptions here about a medical history you know nothing about.

Pretty sure pregnant means that's a chick.


Only a few of the non-XX and non-XY conditions make you infertile. Is someone who is XXXXY and pregnant a "chick"?

If that's the case, it suggests that we're not talking sex chromozomes here, but physical genital manifestation.

But then what's the relatively common condition of being a hermaphrodite?

People like to pretend this is some sort of black and white thing, when only a little though shows it really isn't.

Don't forget that XX males (de la Chapelle) and XY females (XY gonadal dysgenesis, complete androgen insensitivity) do exist naturally, noy just as transgendered people They are externally the opposite sex to what their chromosomes say and usually have normal secondary sex characteristics, and many don't realize it until they try to have kids. I've heard of some XY females who have been able to carry pregnancies to term (some have functional uteri) using donor eggs.


Statistically, it's even possible that at least one of the "hurr durr give them a blood test" guys in here is actually XX and has a translocated SRY gene and would never know it.
 
2013-01-29 09:36:16 AM
"'He doesn't want his children to be born out of wedlock or that he wasn't in a valid different-sex marriage.'"

But she wants a divorce? Does anyone else see a reality show / book deal coming out of this retardation?
 
2013-01-29 09:41:41 AM

Theaetetus: MidnightSkulker: Bungles: Molavian: Bungles: You're making an awful lot of presumptions here about a medical history you know nothing about.

Pretty sure pregnant means that's a chick.


Only a few of the non-XX and non-XY conditions make you infertile. Is someone who is XXXXY and pregnant a "chick"?

If that's the case, it suggests that we're not talking sex chromozomes here, but physical genital manifestation.

But then what's the relatively common condition of being a hermaphrodite?

People like to pretend this is some sort of black and white thing, when only a little though shows it really isn't.

Don't forget that XX males (de la Chapelle) and XY females (XY gonadal dysgenesis, complete androgen insensitivity) do exist naturally, noy just as transgendered people They are externally the opposite sex to what their chromosomes say and usually have normal secondary sex characteristics, and many don't realize it until they try to have kids. I've heard of some XY females who have been able to carry pregnancies to term (some have functional uteri) using donor eggs.

Statistically, it's even possible that at least one of the "hurr durr give them a blood test" guys in here is actually XX and has a translocated SRY gene and would never know it.


It's estimated that the vast bulk of people don't, given the views the average Fark thread gets, it's almost guaranteed a few of us reading this very thread do.
 
2013-01-29 09:41:59 AM

Bungles: Molavian: Bungles: You're making an awful lot of presumptions here about a medical history you know nothing about.

Pretty sure pregnant means that's a chick.


Only a few of the non-XX and non-XY conditions make you infertile. Is someone who is XXXXY and pregnant a "chick"?

If that's the case, it suggests that we're not talking sex chromozomes here, but physical genital manifestation.

But then what's the relatively common condition of being a hermaphrodite?

People like to pretend this is some sort of black and white thing, when only a little though shows it really isn't.


We have a baseline as a species, and then we have individuals who are aberrations. The number of individuals may be nontrivial, but they are aberrations nonetheless. Human genetic code is designed for self-propagation, and to that end you have males and females; females have the organs necessary to gestate young. They may not work properly, but that's the baseline we have as a species. Standing on a corner yelling "I'm a man/woman" neither changes nor define physiology, and no matter how hard you personally want to appeal to emotion that isn't going to change.

/Feel free to lambast me with another appeal to emotion
//Even though I haven't stated an opinion on the subject at hand
 
2013-01-29 09:43:56 AM
So (s)he accepts the societal definition of a bastard and doesn't want the children to be bastards but doesn't accept the society's thoughts on 'a woman who wants to be a man, but also wants to bear children while wanting a divorce from the woman (s)he married and then moved to a state that bans their arrangement based on the local laws they moved into residency under'.?
 
2013-01-29 09:46:12 AM
I agree that if one legally changes to the other for the sake of legal crap they should be the other, but this isn't necessarily that case. This person may have went from she to he, but then he became a mother, and a biological mother cannot be a he. It's a legal and physical impossibility. It's like some one claiming they're sober while they drink booze in secret.
 
2013-01-29 09:47:49 AM
A pregnant man?

chuckpalahniuk.net

"And when I think of where that baby came out of me..."

/achievement unlocked: maximum joke density
 
2013-01-29 09:50:35 AM

Bungles: doubled99: There is no such thing as a pregnant man

If reproduction is not the base standard for what makes a female, then what is?

Would like a word

[www.savethesea.org image 600x800]


Your seahorse can have all the words it wants but the eggs come from the female and are laid inside a pouch on the front of the male. Really not much different than female fish laying their eggs in the sand at the bottom, or female turtles laying their eggs in the sand on the beach.

The "man" in the article has a uterus and produces eggs. Hence female, no matter what the farked up court system says.
 
2013-01-29 09:52:27 AM

Carousel Beast: Bungles: Molavian: Bungles: You're making an awful lot of presumptions here about a medical history you know nothing about.

Pretty sure pregnant means that's a chick.


Only a few of the non-XX and non-XY conditions make you infertile. Is someone who is XXXXY and pregnant a "chick"?

If that's the case, it suggests that we're not talking sex chromozomes here, but physical genital manifestation.

But then what's the relatively common condition of being a hermaphrodite?

People like to pretend this is some sort of black and white thing, when only a little though shows it really isn't.

We have a baseline as a species, and then we have individuals who are aberrations. The number of individuals may be nontrivial, but they are aberrations nonetheless. Human genetic code is designed for self-propagation, and to that end you have males and females; females have the organs necessary to gestate young. They may not work properly, but that's the baseline we have as a species. Standing on a corner yelling "I'm a man/woman" neither changes nor define physiology, and no matter how hard you personally want to appeal to emotion that isn't going to change.

/Feel free to lambast me with another appeal to emotion
//Even though I haven't stated an opinion on the subject at hand



There are a whole host of "aberrations" in all sorts of areas, but generally the law is adapted to cover their situations.

If you're born blind, for example, you have a huge raft of legislation on your side to protect you in lots of different situations. Legal access to Braille government forms, for example. I'm not sure how this is different, and the law adapted to help this nor radically unusual situation.
 
2013-01-29 09:55:49 AM
So, if the judge grants the divorce, I wonder what will happwn with regards to custody. The wife would legally be the mother, so usually the kids would be placed with her first. But she is probably not biologically related to them, and the father is the biological mother ...

Arizona law is going to get lots of updates soon.
 
2013-01-29 09:56:39 AM
Oh FFS. Just grant him his divorce.
 
2013-01-29 10:00:26 AM

Theaetetus: MidnightSkulker: Bungles: Molavian: Bungles: You're making an awful lot of presumptions here about a medical history you know nothing about.

Pretty sure pregnant means that's a chick.


Only a few of the non-XX and non-XY conditions make you infertile. Is someone who is XXXXY and pregnant a "chick"?

If that's the case, it suggests that we're not talking sex chromozomes here, but physical genital manifestation.

But then what's the relatively common condition of being a hermaphrodite?

People like to pretend this is some sort of black and white thing, when only a little though shows it really isn't.

Don't forget that XX males (de la Chapelle) and XY females (XY gonadal dysgenesis, complete androgen insensitivity) do exist naturally, noy just as transgendered people They are externally the opposite sex to what their chromosomes say and usually have normal secondary sex characteristics, and many don't realize it until they try to have kids. I've heard of some XY females who have been able to carry pregnancies to term (some have functional uteri) using donor eggs.

Statistically, it's even possible that at least one of the "hurr durr give them a blood test" guys in here is actually XX and has a translocated SRY gene and would never know it.


Except none of those people seem to be having problems dealing with the legal system at the moment, if they don't know about it.
 
2013-01-29 10:11:13 AM

lack of warmth: Thomas is causing her/his own problem here. She made her change to a man legally in a different state as well as the marriage. After moving to Arizona, didn't check on the laws involving sex change and marriage when they arrived. She legally became a man in a different state than Arizona and got married in another state than Arizona. Now, Arizona didn't question another state's laws marrying these two people, but Arizona is expected to handle a divorce on something that may not have been legal in AZ. This judge has to handle things according to AZ law not Hawaii where all this started. I am with the judge on this, changing a piece of paper means nothing. It is NOT a man, baby. It is a boobless woman, sir. She delivered three children vaginally while on paper a man. I don't hate her, I am just tired of her acting like she did something special. Thomas, the smug pregnant "man".


Changing the sex on your birth certificate is legal in Arizona. Besides, only one state issues your birth certificate, and his was in Hawaii, which also allows you to change the sex on your birth certificate. Sorry, but despite your objections, legally your argument is invalid and he's a man.
 
Displayed 50 of 137 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report