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  
•       •       •

8605 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
 
2013-01-29 06:51:36 AM  
Is it possible we could just shoot everyone involved in this into the sun?
 
2013-01-29 06:54:47 AM  
Most men I know don't have a working uterus.
 
2013-01-29 06:57:11 AM  
Thomas began testosterone treatment in the late 90s and by 2002, had a double mastectomy and chest reconstruction. He's been a man, legally, ever since.

They would have to define legally here because to me that means by law and if he is already lawfully considered a man then the same-sex issues shouldn't be relevant.
 
2013-01-29 06:57:19 AM  
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.
 
2013-01-29 06:57:33 AM  
This is why I support marriage equality.
 
2013-01-29 07:02:07 AM  

SpdrJay: Is it possible we could just shoot everyone involved in this into the sun?


I wouldn't go that far, but still...farking gross.
 
2013-01-29 07:02:46 AM  
Wait, are the religious right pro- or anti-gay divorce?
 
2013-01-29 07:03:09 AM  
For anyone that didn't read the article. He is "legally a man" now. But only legally. I don't know what that means in reality.
 
2013-01-29 07:06:34 AM  

durbnpoisn: For anyone that didn't read the article. He is "legally a man" now. But only legally. I don't know what that means in reality.


It means that her delusions were acceptable to the state but not her uterus.
 
2013-01-29 07:09:29 AM  

C18H27NO3: Thomas began testosterone treatment in the late 90s and by 2002, had a double mastectomy and chest reconstruction. He's been a man, legally, ever since.

They would have to define legally here because to me that means by law and if he is already lawfully considered a man then the same-sex issues shouldn't be relevant.


That's exactly what I thought. If he is  legally a man, then he is  not legally, a woman, poppin' out the crotch droppings or not, and he should  legally be able to get a divorce.

I swear the entire state of Arizona has its head up its ass,  legally.
 
2013-01-29 07:14:44 AM  

Oysterman: Wait, are the religious right pro- or anti-gay divorce?


Technically the were never really married since they were same-sex.
 
2013-01-29 07:16:07 AM  
His children will need lots of therapy.
 
2013-01-29 07:19:14 AM  
Grant the divorce already and quit hashing over his sex. At least one state (Oregon) has already declared him a man. Why does Arizona have to throw a wrench into it?

That said, the man-giving-birth angle the media hyped up was not some sort of miracle. If a MTF actually is able to give birth, that would be the medical marvel.
 
2013-01-29 07:21:21 AM  
Saying that this is a "pregnant man" is really ruining the specialness of the first *actual* pregnant man around 2065, with his omni-directional holo-womb implant.
 
2013-01-29 07:21:24 AM  
i43.tower.com
ecx.images-amazon.com
 
2013-01-29 07:21:40 AM  
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.
 
2013-01-29 07:21:52 AM  
But "he" was declaired male legally by way of fraud.  As evidenced by the fact that he later gave birth and is the biological mother to three children.  So the state can claim that they cannot divorce two people who are not legally married.

The law should make sense as much as possible.  It does not make sense to call someone who is female a male and the reverse.  It also does not make sense to dissalow two females or two males to get married.

I know, I'm expecting the impossible.  Law will never make sense.  But it shouldn't be this screwed up.
 
2013-01-29 07:25:00 AM  
Why would a lawyer say this "Only 21 percent of female-to-male transsexuals actually get a hysterectomy," Cantor said. "That means 80 percent keep their reproductive organs." - once you say 21% surely you should say 79%!?
 
2013-01-29 07:26:29 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.


But those who aren't XX or XY are not statistically insignificant (and... shock horror!... an even larger percentage of transgendered people are not).

You're saying "Let's ignore all this non-XY and non-XX nonsense, even though that's a large chuck of the issue!"
 
2013-01-29 07:28:26 AM  

beautifulbob: But "he" was declaired male legally by way of fraud.  As evidenced by the fact that he later gave birth and is the biological mother to three children.  So the state can claim that they cannot divorce two people who are not legally married.

The law should make sense as much as possible.  It does not make sense to call someone who is female a male and the reverse.  It also does not make sense to dissalow two females or two males to get married.

I know, I'm expecting the impossible.  Law will never make sense.  But it shouldn't be this screwed up.


"'If the law supposes that,' said Mr. Bumble, squeezing his hat emphatically in both hands, 'the law is a ass-a idiot."

/It's been true for a very long time.
 
2013-01-29 07:30:53 AM  

Bungles: 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.

But those who aren't XX or XY are not statistically insignificant (and... shock horror!... an even larger percentage of transgendered people are not).

You're saying "Let's ignore all this non-XY and non-XX nonsense, even though that's a large chuck of the issue!"


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.
 
2013-01-29 07:31:46 AM  
That is one confused individual.
 
2013-01-29 07:31:52 AM  
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.
 
2013-01-29 07:34:39 AM  
what's even more confusing, if this chick "became a man" and "married" her girlfriend, why wasn't the girlfriend the one who got pregnant? why did they choose to impregnate her (sorry, "him")?
 
2013-01-29 07:37:31 AM  

SpdrJay: Is it possible we could just shoot everyone involved in this into the sun?


Insert scruffy the janitor meme here
 
2013-01-29 07:37:51 AM  
Oh Jesus farking Christ, just give them a divorce already and let everyone involved be done with this.
 
2013-01-29 07:41:26 AM  
Wow, I see a lot of "concern" here over some subject that has nothing to do with any of us, and is none of our business.

Some of you should be as diligent about your own life as you are about judging strangers.
 
2013-01-29 07:42:36 AM  

proteus_b: what's even more confusing, if this chick "became a man" and "married" her girlfriend, why wasn't the girlfriend the one who got pregnant? why did they choose to impregnate her (sorry, "him")?


Because she (the wife) could not get pregnant.
 
2013-01-29 07:43:34 AM  

taurusowner: Bungles: 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.

But those who aren't XX or XY are not statistically insignificant (and... shock horror!... an even larger percentage of transgendered people are not).

You're saying "Let's ignore all this non-XY and non-XX nonsense, even though that's a large chuck of the issue!"

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.


You're making an awful lot of presumptions here about a medical history you know nothing about.
 
2013-01-29 07:45:53 AM  

durbnpoisn: For anyone that didn't read the article. He is "legally a man" now. But only legally. I don't know what that means in reality.


It means it's a woman who is surgically mutilated and chemically unbalanced.
 
2013-01-29 07:46:14 AM  
I want to legally become an airplane.

/Don't you DARE judge me!
 
2013-01-29 07:46:33 AM  

proteus_b: what's even more confusing, if this chick "became a man" and "married" her girlfriend, why wasn't the girlfriend the one who got pregnant? why did they choose to impregnate her (sorry, "him")?


Maybe she wanted to become a "attention man-whore."
 
2013-01-29 07:46:38 AM  

taurusowner: Bungles: 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.

But those who aren't XX or XY are not statistically insignificant (and... shock horror!... an even larger percentage of transgendered people are not).

You're saying "Let's ignore all this non-XY and non-XX nonsense, even though that's a large chuck of the issue!"

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.


Regardless of science or common sense, there have already been cases where transgenderd people have changed their "legal" sex based on the situation they are in. That's not the case for all though.
 
2013-01-29 07:47:30 AM  

taurusowner: Bungles: 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.

But those who aren't XX or XY are not statistically insignificant (and... shock horror!... an even larger percentage of transgendered people are not).

You're saying "Let's ignore all this non-XY and non-XX nonsense, even though that's a large chuck of the issue!"

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.

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"
 
2013-01-29 07:47:41 AM  
The gender on the state ID is the one that should be relevant.

/lots of bigots in this thread
//gender dysphoria is a real condition.
///gender reassignment is the only known effective therapy.
 
xcv
2013-01-29 07:47:53 AM  

beautifulbob: But "he" was declaired male legally by way of fraud.  As evidenced by the fact that he later gave birth and is the biological mother to three children.  So the state can claim that they cannot divorce two people who are not legally married.

The law should make sense as much as possible.  It does not make sense to call someone who is female a male and the reverse.  It also does not make sense to dissalow two females or two males to get married.

I know, I'm expecting the impossible.  Law will never make sense.  But it shouldn't be this screwed up.


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?
 
2013-01-29 07:55:50 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.


I think that law should have as few gender identifiers as possible.  We simply do not need to state male and female for almost anything, including marriage, divorce and the like.  However, if there are laws that do need identification, genetics is the easiest way to go.  And to answer the XXY statement above, you put in a definition.  I can't think right now of where we would need such a thing, but I'm sure someone else here will.

I can move to China and become a citizen.  I will be Chinese.  But I will never be asian.  Just can't be.  Live as a male, live as a female.  I don''t care and the law shouldn't either.  But when we need to identify the sex of a human being, it should be by what you are packing in your genes.  Not what you are packing in your jeans.
 
2013-01-29 07:56:01 AM  

twat_waffle: The gender on the state ID is the one that should be relevant.

/lots of bigots in this thread
//gender dysphoria is a real condition.
///gender reassignment is the only known effective therapy.


Sounds like someone's speaking from experience?
 
2013-01-29 07:58:07 AM  
In for the custody battle
 
2013-01-29 07:59:13 AM  

twat_waffle: //gender dysphoria is a real condition.
///gender reassignment is the only known effective therapy.


It is a real medical condition, and a good friend of mine has it. You shouldn't discriminate against someone that has it, nor should you give them a hard time about it. When they came out of the closet and wanted to go to a gay bar and what it was about I was the person they asked to go with them to make sure they were safe. My friend knows that he is safe in my house, can walk around in skirts all he wants and talks to me about the surgeries he wants to get. I truly understand that they /actually/ really do feel like a woman / man trapped in the wrong body.

However that doesn't mean that having surgery /really/ makes you a man or women any more than dying your skin makes you a black guy. The surgery is about trying to give the person a peace of mind about their identity, it doesn't actually change their sex. Your chromosomes don't change, your plumbing remains the same and your internal health problems remain the same.

/Flame away as I'm sure I've now offended people on both sides of this one....
 
2013-01-29 08:00:12 AM  
Sex and gender are two completely different things.

Where's the Father in all of this?

WHAR SPERM? WHAR!!
 
2013-01-29 08:00:21 AM  

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.
 
2013-01-29 08:04:49 AM  

twat_waffle: The gender on the state ID is the one that should be relevant.


....because the declaration of a DMV clerk unmakes reality.

/lots of bigots in this thread
//gender dysphoria is a real condition.
///gender reassignment is the only known effective therapy.


How's that been working out for this couple?
 
2013-01-29 08:05:33 AM  
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.
 
2013-01-29 08:09:35 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.


Wow. Way to belittle every transgender person's experience and struggle.

And I just fed the troll but this subject always pisses me off.
 
2013-01-29 08:10:23 AM  

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.
 
2013-01-29 08:11:17 AM  
content8.flixster.com

I want to have babies.
 
2013-01-29 08:16:40 AM  

cryinoutloud: Wow, I see a lot of "concern" here over some subject that has nothing to do with any of us, and is none of our business.

Some of you should be as diligent about your own life as you are about judging strangers.


You're an idiot.
 
2013-01-29 08:16:44 AM  
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.
 
2013-01-29 08:17:55 AM  
not enough sighing or eye rolling can be conveyed to everyone involved and everyone posting. head_assplode.jpg
 
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.
 
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 137 of 137 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report