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 46
    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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-01-29 07:06:34 AM
5 votes:

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 06:54:47 AM
5 votes:
Most men I know don't have a working uterus.
2013-01-29 10:15:05 AM
4 votes:
It's NOT a man, and it is NOT the first pregnant man. It is a woman who is insane.
2013-01-29 07:21:40 AM
4 votes:
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 07:45:53 AM
3 votes:

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 07:21:52 AM
3 votes:
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 07:16:07 AM
3 votes:
His children will need lots of therapy.
2013-01-29 06:57:19 AM
3 votes:
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 06:51:36 AM
3 votes:
Is it possible we could just shoot everyone involved in this into the sun?
2013-01-29 10:26:50 AM
2 votes:

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 10:16:26 AM
2 votes:
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 09:50:35 AM
2 votes:

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 09:46:12 AM
2 votes:
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 09:41:59 AM
2 votes:

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 08:42:44 AM
2 votes:
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 08:20:44 AM
2 votes:

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 08:04:49 AM
2 votes:

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 08:00:21 AM
2 votes:

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 07:59:13 AM
2 votes:

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 07:55:50 AM
2 votes:

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 07:34:39 AM
2 votes:
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 07:02:46 AM
2 votes:
Wait, are the religious right pro- or anti-gay divorce?
2013-01-29 06:57:11 AM
2 votes:
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 08:55:50 PM
1 votes:
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 12:17:58 PM
1 votes:

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 11:40:13 AM
1 votes:
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 10:18:57 AM
1 votes:

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 10:12:01 AM
1 votes:
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 09:43:56 AM
1 votes:
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 09:36:16 AM
1 votes:
"'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 09:28:58 AM
1 votes:

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 08:35:09 AM
1 votes:
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 08:31:47 AM
1 votes:

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 08:26:43 AM
1 votes:
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 08:26:19 AM
1 votes:
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 08:16:44 AM
1 votes:
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 08:11:17 AM
1 votes:
content8.flixster.com

I want to have babies.
2013-01-29 08:05:33 AM
1 votes:
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 08:00:12 AM
1 votes:
Sex and gender are two completely different things.

Where's the Father in all of this?

WHAR SPERM? WHAR!!
xcv
2013-01-29 07:47:53 AM
1 votes:

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 07:47:41 AM
1 votes:
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.
2013-01-29 07:37:51 AM
1 votes:
Oh Jesus farking Christ, just give them a divorce already and let everyone involved be done with this.
2013-01-29 07:31:52 AM
1 votes:
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 07:30:53 AM
1 votes:

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 07:26:29 AM
1 votes:

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 06:57:33 AM
1 votes:
This is why I support marriage equality.
 
Displayed 46 of 46 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report