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  
•       •       •

8602 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 10:12:01 AM
Why go through all that pain and effort to transform yourself from a woman to a man if you're just going to go back to using your original equipment for its intended purpose?
 
2013-01-29 10:12:33 AM
What chapter of California gay history books will this be in i wonder
 
2013-01-29 10:15:05 AM
It's NOT a man, and it is NOT the first pregnant man. It is a woman who is insane.
 
2013-01-29 10:16:26 AM
If she had gone whole hog, lost the uterus or at least made herself sterile, I'd be ok with her identifying as male. But she didn't completely go through with the gender change. Having a functional uterus and having three babies is a pretty dead giveaway that you are in fact, not a man.
 
2013-01-29 10:18:07 AM

theflinx: It's NOT a man, and it is NOT the first pregnant man. It is a woman who is insane.



That fact you're using "it" suggests you're not quite as sure as you think you are
 
2013-01-29 10:18:57 AM

Bungles: 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.


I see where you're going, but that wasn't what I meant. I'm not arguing that legally we shouldn't address things. I was arguing that we really do have a binary on what "normal" is/should be when it comes to sexing humans. BUT - the legal system has failed here. Our bar needs to be "consenting adults" and not "legally declared [x]'. Any two consenting adults should be allowed to marry. The law shouldn't need to declare someone's sex or gender.

My position: I'm a guy, and I'm comfortable in my gender/role. If you're a guy and you're not, and you wish to change that, the consenting adult rule should apply. It doesn't have any impact on me at all, so it really shouldn't be my concern. I think we, as a society, could well benefit from an upswing in "live and let live."
 
2013-01-29 10:20:25 AM

SnarfVader:
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.


His/her childrens' birth certificates say he/her is a woman. Which is right? Which holds legal weight? Hell, if they can be changed that easily should they hold any weight? Are birth certificates considered scientific documentation or just medical opinion?
 
2013-01-29 10:21:02 AM

theflinx: It's NOT a man, and it is NOT the first pregnant man. It is a woman who is insane.


Ah, but you clearly don't believe that, or you'd be using the pronoun "she", hypocrite.
 
2013-01-29 10:21:38 AM

Bungles: theflinx: It's NOT a man, and it is NOT the first pregnant man. It is a woman who is insane.


That fact you're using "it" suggests you're not quite as sure as you think you are


[fistbump]
 
2013-01-29 10:24:26 AM

Carn: If she had gone whole hog, lost the uterus or at least made herself sterile, I'd be ok with her identifying as male.


I hadn't realized someone appointed you the Penis Czar. Is that a cabinet level position, or do you just sit on the President's staff?

But she didn't completely go through with the gender change. Having a functional uterus and having three babies is a pretty dead giveaway that you are in fact, not a man.

Or, we could say that gender is not a dichotomy and between the uterus, beard, and hairy chest, he's somewhere along the sliding scale.
 
2013-01-29 10:25:13 AM

Carousel Beast: Bungles: 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.

I see where you're going, but that wasn't what I meant. I'm not arguing that legally we shouldn't address things. I was arguing that we really do have a binary on what "normal" is/should be when it comes to sexing humans. BUT - the legal system has failed here. Our bar needs t ...


But insisting that we do have a clearly definitive boundary is the issue. There's a messy middle, both from a genetic point of view and a "what genitals?" point of view. You don't even have to go into the entire "gender identity" world of psychology to see there's a grey area, you can just do it on basic genetic facts and ignore all that controversy.

Trying to impose a man-made concept of a male/female binary onto the real-world facts that tell a different story is the issue here.
 
2013-01-29 10:26:50 AM

Theaetetus: Or, we could say that gender is not a dichotomy and between the uterus, beard, and hairy chest, he's somewhere along the sliding scale.


We could, but there are problems with sliding scales, because our government uses a binary system, so we can't and we don't. I wonder if this person who legally changed their sex to male was forced to enroll for Selective Service like I was when I became of age.
 
2013-01-29 10:26:56 AM

Theaetetus: Bungles: theflinx: It's NOT a man, and it is NOT the first pregnant man. It is a woman who is insane.


That fact you're using "it" suggests you're not quite as sure as you think you are

[fistbump]



I'll only fistbump you if it's a clearly defined and gendered fist.
 
2013-01-29 10:29:18 AM

bhcompy: Theaetetus: Or, we could say that gender is not a dichotomy and between the uterus, beard, and hairy chest, he's somewhere along the sliding scale.

We could, but there are problems with sliding scales, because our government uses a binary system, so we can't and we don't.


But our government isn't required to use a binary system, and in fact is not allowed to make distinctions based on gender unless they have a sufficiently important reason.

I wonder if this person who legally changed their sex to male was forced to enroll for Selective Service like I was when I became of age.

You do know there hasn't been a draft in decades, right?
 
2013-01-29 10:45:54 AM

Theaetetus: bhcompy: Theaetetus: Or, we could say that gender is not a dichotomy and between the uterus, beard, and hairy chest, he's somewhere along the sliding scale.

We could, but there are problems with sliding scales, because our government uses a binary system, so we can't and we don't.

But our government isn't required to use a binary system, and in fact is not allowed to make distinctions based on gender unless they have a sufficiently important reason.

I wonder if this person who legally changed their sex to male was forced to enroll for Selective Service like I was when I became of age.

You do know there hasn't been a draft in decades, right?


Tell yourself that when your number comes up.
 
2013-01-29 10:47:57 AM

Theaetetus: Carn: If she had gone whole hog, lost the uterus or at least made herself sterile, I'd be ok with her identifying as male.

I hadn't realized someone appointed you the Penis Czar. Is that a cabinet level position, or do you just sit on the President's staff?

But she didn't completely go through with the gender change. Having a functional uterus and having three babies is a pretty dead giveaway that you are in fact, not a man.

Or, we could say that gender is not a dichotomy and between the uterus, beard, and hairy chest, he's somewhere along the sliding scale.


So he's Shrodinger's male?

Who needs a penis czar? She doesn't have one. Look, I get that some people truly feel that they were born the wrong gender and want to go through with a sex change operation. I also agree that these two should be able to be married and/or divorced if they want. However, this person is either female or transgender. I'm all for equal rights but if this person is male, what then can we say is the criteria for being male?
 
2013-01-29 10:48:07 AM

Theaetetus: You do know there hasn't been a draft in decades, right?


And there have been significant amounts of time between drafts in the past as well. Doesn't mean shiat.

But our government isn't required to use a binary system, and in fact is not allowed to make distinctions based on gender unless they have a sufficiently important reason.

You let me know when reality conforms to your ideological perspective and we can reassess the situation. Our government isn't required to tax you, either, but they do.
 
2013-01-29 10:52:22 AM

bhcompy: Theaetetus: You do know there hasn't been a draft in decades, right?

And there have been significant amounts of time between drafts in the past as well. Doesn't mean shiat.

But our government isn't required to use a binary system, and in fact is not allowed to make distinctions based on gender unless they have a sufficiently important reason.

You let me know when reality conforms to your ideological perspective and we can reassess the situation. Our government isn't required to tax you, either, but they do.


There's a difference between "our government isn't required to do [x], but they're allowed to" and "our government isn't allowed to do [y]." Let's see if you can figure it out.
 
2013-01-29 10:53:55 AM

bhcompy: SnarfVader:
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.

His/her childrens' birth certificates say he/her is a woman. Which is right? Which holds legal weight? Hell, if they can be changed that easily should they hold any weight? Are birth certificates considered scientific documentation or just medical opinion?


No, it doesn't matter what his birth certificate originally said. It only matters what his current birth certificate says in the eyes of the law. None of this he/she bullshiat. He went before a judge and changed his birth certificate. He is legally a man right now and was at the time of marriage. A doctor had to certify it before a judge. I don't care how easily or difficult it is to go before a judge and change your gender. He did it, he's a man legally, and all of this XY or uterus talk can be thrown right out the window when it comes to the courts.
 
2013-01-29 10:58:23 AM
There's a wide range of naturally occurring sexual genetic, physical and hormonal variance. From de la Chapelle syndrome to Androgen Insensitivity syndrome and numerous variances between. The wikipedia page on this topic is NSFW. There's even conditions where opposite "chromosomal gender" embryos merge into one being, creating mosaicism or chimerism.

Yes, they're deviations from the "norm." The norm isn't a fixed point either though, there's still a range of hormone levels and developmental differences even within those who are considered "normal." They still stand as proof that basing sex solely on genes only doesn't really work. I would hope you wouldn't tell a person with de la Chapelle's or Androgen Insensitivity syndrome that they're actually their genetic gender and start treating them as such because chromosomes aren't the only thing to base gender off of, and that's shown even in naturally occurring variances. For transgender people, it just happens to be that their self identified gender doesn't match up with the body they were born with, which means many of these people suffer for years of being misidentified from what they feel they are, which has to be undeniably stressful. Imagine you lived for up to decades of being told you were something you knew you weren't in your mind? Or are you unable to imagine such a scenario?

I would hope you aren't so callous that you would tell a person with a visibly deformed, but still moderately to fully functional body that they have no right to change it because that's what they were born with and that's what they'll always be like even if they did do surgical alterations. It would be inane to do so. Why would you say that people who are transgender are not actually the sex they assume after they're able to actually choose who they feel like they are with surgical modification or even before?

Gender has more to do with roles associated with the person on a social level than pretty much anything else, which is why Thomas Beatie does indeed have an argument. He assumed the role of a male, which means he is male.

It's only as of recent years that people have been able to use hormones and surgery to pick their gender, and while Thomas Beatie may not be "fully" male by some people's standards because he still has female sex organs, there are naturally occurring sexual variations which could have yielded the same effect. He chose to live primarily as a man, and he wanted children and had a healthy set of female sex organs by which he was able to conceive children. Wanting children does not mean he is not a man. Male is the social role he chose to primarily assume, which is why he is a man.

If you can't accept this, it appears you view the world in excessively stark shades of black and white. The world is not starkly black and white though, it's numerous nuances of shades between.
 
2013-01-29 11:01:19 AM

SnarfVader: bhcompy: SnarfVader:
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.

His/her childrens' birth certificates say he/her is a woman. Which is right? Which holds legal weight? Hell, if they can be changed that easily should they hold any weight? Are birth certificates considered scientific documentation or just medical opinion?

No, it doesn't matter what his birth certificate originally said. It only matters what his current birth certificate says in the eyes of the law. None of this he/she bullshiat. He went before a judge and changed his birth certificate. He is legally a man right now and was at the time of marriage. A doctor had to certify it before a judge. I don't care how easily or difficult it is to go before a judge and change your gender. He did it, he's a man legally, and all of this XY or uterus talk can be thrown right out the window when it comes to the courts.


Except now you have two legal documents that you've made the ultimate arbiter of gender, and one identifies the person as male(this person's own modified birth certificate, this person didn't evolve while living), one as female(this person's child's birth certificate). Which is right? Do only certain fields hold legal weight on the birth certificate?
 
2013-01-29 11:02:00 AM

Theaetetus: There's a difference between "our government isn't required to do [x], but they're allowed to" and "our government isn't allowed to do [y]." Let's see if you can figure it out.


Our government is allowed to do [y], as I stipulated with my example.
 
2013-01-29 11:08:02 AM

bhcompy: SnarfVader: bhcompy: SnarfVader:
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.

His/her childrens' birth certificates say he/her is a woman. Which is right? Which holds legal weight? Hell, if they can be changed that easily should they hold any weight? Are birth certificates considered scientific documentation or just medical opinion?

No, it doesn't matter what his birth certificate originally said. It only matters what his current birth certificate says in the eyes of the law. None of this he/she bullshiat. He went before a judge and changed his birth certificate. He is legally a man right now and was at the time of marriage. A doctor had to certify it before a judge. I don't care how easily or difficult it is to go before a judge and change your gender. He did it, he's a man legally, and all of this XY or uterus talk can be thrown right out the window when it comes to the courts.

Except now you have two legal documents that you've made the ultimate arbiter of gender, and one identifies the person as male(this person's own modified birth certificate, this person didn't evolve while living), one as female(this person's child's birth certificate). Which is right? Do only certain fields hold legal weight on the birth certificate?


The CURRENT birth certificate. The one that was modified, as you say. The original is no longer legal and is not an arbiter of gender anymore. In some states, the original is completely replaced. I was adopted. I cannot use my original certificate anymore and my adoptive parents are listed on my current certificate as mother and father. The same thing would happen if I changed my gender.
 
2013-01-29 11:14:24 AM

SnarfVader: The CURRENT birth certificate. The one that was modified, as you say. The original is no longer legal and is not an arbiter of gender anymore. In some states, the original is completely replaced. I was adopted. I cannot use my original certificate anymore and my adoptive parents are listed on my current certificate as mother and father. The same thing would happen if I changed my gender.


And there we get in to fields. This person's child's birth certificate says they are the biological female mother. Do you value one legal document over another? Do you only value certain fields in the document(ie does parentage not hold legal value on a birth certificate? we know it does for custody and parental rights claims)? Do you not see the legal conundrum identified in this article by the judge along this line of reasoning?
 
2013-01-29 11:32:36 AM
This wouldn't be a problem if he gotten the full man conversion package.

But no, he had to keep a womb of his own.
 
2013-01-29 11:35:03 AM
Damned gun lobby will no doubt claim this as evidence that packing heat is the solution to all your problems.
 
2013-01-29 11:40:13 AM
Coupla things:

FTFA: "Thomas ended up giving birth to three children during his marriage to Nancy."

Once Is Chance, Twice is Coincidence, Third Time Is A Pattern.

Also FTFA, "But the confusion seems to surround the fact that despite his sex-change operation, Thomas kept his reproductive organs."

Tits or no tits, if you have lady bits. You are a lady.

Finally, in the entire time of written history, I have yet to know of any man on the this planet to have given birth to 3 children.

/Dude, you're gay.
//Or lesbian
//Or gesbian
///Or whatever
 
2013-01-29 11:45:31 AM

bhcompy: SnarfVader: The CURRENT birth certificate. The one that was modified, as you say. The original is no longer legal and is not an arbiter of gender anymore. In some states, the original is completely replaced. I was adopted. I cannot use my original certificate anymore and my adoptive parents are listed on my current certificate as mother and father. The same thing would happen if I changed my gender.

And there we get in to fields. This person's child's birth certificate says they are the biological female mother. Do you value one legal document over another? Do you only value certain fields in the document(ie does parentage not hold legal value on a birth certificate? we know it does for custody and parental rights claims)? Do you not see the legal conundrum identified in this article by the judge along this line of reasoning?


There is no other legal document needed. His birth certificate is the only legal document he needs to prove he is a male. I don't care about his children's certificates. I don't care about his parentage. I don't care about anything else in this case. They don't matter. For the purposes of divorce, when it comes to whether this is or isn't a same sex marriage, only the field of sex on his birth certificate should matter. If it says male and he is married to a female, it's not same sex and the marriage is legal in Arizona. There is no legal conundrum. It could not be simpler and the judge is just grandstanding. That's all the further I'm going to say on that.
 
2013-01-29 12:04:13 PM

SnarfVader: There is no other legal document needed. His birth certificate is the only legal document he needs to prove he is a male. I don't care about his children's certificates. I don't care about his parentage. I don't care about anything else in this case. They don't matter. For the purposes of divorce, when it comes to whether this is or isn't a same sex marriage, only the field of sex on his birth certificate should matter. If it says male and he is married to a female, it's not same sex and the marriage is legal in Arizona. There is no legal conundrum. It could not be simpler and the judge is just grandstanding. That's all the further I'm going to say on that.


And that's the difference between you making arbitrary decisions and the judge examining all legal documentation. Judges don't have blinders like you do, at least not the kind you do.
 
2013-01-29 12:17:07 PM
Theaetetus

theflinx: It's NOT a man, and it is NOT the first pregnant man. It is a woman who is insane.

Ah, but you clearly don't believe that, or you'd be using the pronoun "she", hypocrite.


Theaetetus


Bungles: theflinx: It's NOT a man, and it is NOT the first pregnant man. It is a woman who is insane.


That fact you're using "it" suggests you're not quite as sure as you think you are

[fistbump]


Due to the confusion over definitions, he's correctly using the more vague term here. Hypocrite? wtf?

Your little point is as tired and lame as a fistbump
 
2013-01-29 12:17:58 PM

bhcompy: SnarfVader: There is no other legal document needed. His birth certificate is the only legal document he needs to prove he is a male. I don't care about his children's certificates. I don't care about his parentage. I don't care about anything else in this case. They don't matter. For the purposes of divorce, when it comes to whether this is or isn't a same sex marriage, only the field of sex on his birth certificate should matter. If it says male and he is married to a female, it's not same sex and the marriage is legal in Arizona. There is no legal conundrum. It could not be simpler and the judge is just grandstanding. That's all the further I'm going to say on that.

And that's the difference between you making arbitrary decisions and the judge examining all legal documentation. Judges don't have blinders like you do, at least not the kind you do.


i212.photobucket.com
 
2013-01-29 12:22:28 PM

xcv: How about the first one to lose custody of the children and pay 18 years of child support and alimony gets to be declared male?


LULZ
 
2013-01-29 02:59:50 PM

Noah_Tall: Well. If he is undergoing hormone therapy he should have his children taken away anyway for abuse. Subjecting an unborn child to a level 2 controlled substance while pregnant.


Uh, they're hormones, and are naturally present, and I remember reading about this stuff before; she* stopped taking them when she wanted to have a kid.

I tend to go with a 2/3 standard:
1. Genetic XX - Female, XY - Male
2. Phenotype - Vag, breasts = female; penis, testes = male.
3. Mental

If you were born female and want to be male because you're 'mentally male', you need to have surgery done to make your body at least 50% male by phenotype. IE bye-bye breasts, preferably have the surgery to have a penis constructed. Or the hormones/reconstruction surgery to do the opposite.

This covers XY females with complete androgen insensitivity and such.

*If you've got the female parts and are deliberately using them to procreate, you're female.
 
2013-01-29 08:25:19 PM
that chick ain't no man, and saying 'a man gave birth' will always be ten shades of false bullshiat until a real honest to god genetic male gives birth. let these two chicks divorce each other and be done with it, though, just like everyone else says.
 
2013-01-29 08:55:50 PM
We'll all be a lot better off once we stop letting people pretend that reality is they way they want instead of the way it really is.
 
2013-01-29 09:47:26 PM
Oh, Arizona. *eyeroll*

Holy crap XX males and XY females, XXY males, XXX females... Genetics isn't as cut and dry as some of you armchair biologists seem to think it is. So stop pretending you can use Science to back up your prejudices. Just say "I'm a narrow-minded bonehead who hates people that are different than me," and move on.

:p
 
2013-01-30 06:47:09 AM
creepy people are creepy
story at 11
 
Displayed 37 of 137 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report