Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed2.uk.ibm.net!sackheads.org!ibm.net!europa.clark.net!199.60.229.5!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.he.net!news.pbi.net!not-for-mail From: Suzan Cooke Newsgroups: soc.support.transgendered Subject: Re: Will I still be legally married AFTER SRS?? Date: Sun, 15 Mar 1998 23:56:26 -0800 Organization: Pacific Bell Internet Services Lines: 33 Message-ID: <350CDB29.B530AD52@pacbell.net> References: <350AADF4.2B16@home.com> Reply-To: scooke@pacbell.net NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-206-170-215-8.lsan03.pacbell.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I) IMO and I'm using male to females transsexuals only. Having surgery would invalidate any marriage to a woman. That would probably be the case anywhere in the United States. It might not immediately. You might even skate for a while but the first time insurance companies, divorce courts etc look at it bye bye marriage. I see that as being how it should be until Lesbians and Gays have the right of same sex marriage. I am lesbian identified and I because I was not married prior to surgery, (didn't realize that I might like women even at that point) I can't marry a woman. Basically the argument that you should be able to continue your marriage when you have essentially turned it into a Lesbian relationship because you were a male when you got married is the worst sort of heterosexist male privilege that I've seen presented in these groups. Divorce and become decent Lesbians who fight for the Right of Same Sex Marriage. Continue your partnerships the same way the rest of us lezzies do. After all you wanted to be women and that means giving up the male privilege of being married to a woman. As Spunky said the other position is just so male "Screw you, I've got mine!" you ought to be ashamed. TranZGrrlla === = 8< O ) Oh No She's Doing It Again. Shit Disturbing B--Witch. === Suzy ###### From: Toni Roome Newsgroups: soc.support.transgendered Subject: Re: Will I still be legally married AFTER SRS?? Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 14:08:52 +0000 Organization: C-, could do better Lines: 71 Message-ID: <350D3274.37962759@erewhon.u-net.com> References: <350AADF4.2B16@home.com> <350CDB29.B530AD52@pacbell.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: p-jcs61.nas4.is1.u-net.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04 (X11; I; Linux 2.0.29 i486) Path: ccw.ch!bali.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!newsfeed.usit.net!news-dc-1.sprintlink.net!news-east.sprintlink.net!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!Sprint!news.maxwell.syr.edu!rill.news.pipex.net!pipex!news-lond.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!peer.news.u-net.net!u-net!news.u-net.com!erewhon.u-net.com!nobody Hi Suzan, Suzan Cooke wrote: > > IMO and I'm using male to females transsexuals only. Having surgery > would invalidate any marriage to a woman. That would probably be the > case anywhere in the United States. > > It might not immediately. You might even skate for a while but the > first time insurance companies, divorce courts etc look at it bye bye > marriage. I see that as being how it should be until Lesbians and Gays > have the right of same sex marriage. > Really this all depends on whether your jurisdiction allows you to officially correct your sex. Over here in the UK, although we can change many of our identification documents (Passports, Driving License, etc.) sex for purposes of marriage is determined by your birth certificate, and since the Corbett vs Corbett (April Ashley) judgement correcting this has not been possible. So we can marry, both pre- and (I think) post-srs in our recorded sex, but heterosexual marriage is not possible. Until very recently we were also required to divorce prior to getting SRS, so couldn't marry anyone at all ((. There was an attempt to correct the current situation through a private member's bill in the last Parliament. This did indeed include a clause that correcting your sex would not be possible if you remained married. The bill was not however enacted in to law. The C v C judgment is currently also being challenged in the European Courts, however since a recent judgement that tried to established rights for same-sex couples under the Sex Discrimination act failed I doubt that, if successful, we would be able to get a right to correct our birth certificates *and* remain legally married. [snip] > Basically the argument that you should be able to continue your > marriage when you have essentially turned it into a Lesbian relationship > because you were a male when you got married is the worst sort of > heterosexist male privilege that I've seen presented in these groups. > Heterosexist perhaps but the male bit depend on your opening assumption we are talking MtF. It does cut both ways. I would also only agree if you are also allowed to marry in your true gender in your jurisdiction. > Divorce and become decent Lesbians who fight for the Right of Same > Sex Marriage. Continue your partnerships the same way the rest of us > lezzies do. After all you wanted to be women and that means giving up > the male privilege of being married to a woman. > I suspect that if I was allowed to choose I would agree with you and change my birth certificate (at the expense of de-legitimising my partnership). But I think you have to look at these matters pragmatically, in terms of what rights you get together as a couple from your choice (in the UK this can affect your and your partners tax, pension and inheritance rights). Which is not to argue with my support for your political position. > As Spunky said the other position is just so male "Screw you, I've > got mine!" you ought to be ashamed. > Before you get too much on your high horsde please remember that ppl are thinking about their partners too (not neccessarily a male characteristic). hugs, -- Toni "One should, each day, try to hear a little song, read a good poem, see a fine picture, and, if it is possible, speak a few reasonable words" (Goethe) ###### From: Suzan Cooke Newsgroups: soc.support.transgendered Subject: Re: Will I still be legally married AFTER SRS?? Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 16:48:05 -0800 Organization: Pacific Bell Internet Services Lines: 60 Message-ID: <350DC845.4F5749DE@pacbell.net> References: <350D60C8.6418E5DE@erewhon.u-net.com> <19980316232201.SAA19802@ladder01.news.aol.com> Reply-To: scooke@pacbell.net NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-206-170-214-182.lsan03.pacbell.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (Win95; I) Path: ccw.ch!bali.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!newsfeed.usit.net!newsfeed.wli.net!news.he.net!news.pbi.net!not-for-mail Gee Whiz Mom this is sure getting confusing. Sort of like we just opened big old can of worms. Lets see if we can untangle this a bit. 1. In the United States a man and a woman may legally be married. Currently as of 03/16/98 4:30ish pm.PST in no state may a man and a man or a woman and a woman be legally married. Can we all agree on that one? Hey I don't write the rules I only report on them. So don't yell at me about how unfair these rules are. For the record I think they suck 2. Most of the states permit Transsexuals who have SRS to change their birth certificates. At this point they depending on if they are M2F or F2M are respectively permitted to legally marry a man or a woman respectively. The marriage is for heterosexuals rules of marriage as an institution for the union of a man and a woman are left intact. Are you still with me? 3. Along comes a couple who have been married heterosexually for X number of years. One partner gets SRS. All of a sudden you no longer have a union of a man and a woman. You have a union of two women or two men. This violates the rule that marriage as an institution is legally recognized as existing only when it is between a man and a woman. Now we find our selves on the horns of a dilemma. If under the current rules you consider a post op male to female to be female she is barred by law from being married to a woman but she can be married to a man. The same applies for the post op female to male when he is considered in the eyes of the law to be male he is only permitted by law to marry a woman. Now when we are asked to continue to recognize marriages which were entered into as a man and a woman when because of surgery they become between two MOTSS (members of the same sex) we create a real problem either society has to recognize marriage between MOTSS or they are forced to continue to consider the post-op as a member of the original birth sex. Do we really want that paradox to be in play. Do we really think that they will decide to recognize same sex marriages or do you think they might just say "Screw this you will forever be recognize as a member of your birth sex and that is the only way you may marry? Now I can hear those of us who were married to a partner who has become our lesbian or gay partner prior to surgery saying "I can live with that. After all I've got mine." All I can say is that it will be just F***ing sweet if future trannies are no longer able to change their birth certificates because of the selfish insistance of a few poeple who try to push this form of same sex marriage through. I want everyone here to notice that at no time have I suggested that these relationships end. I only feel and I feel this from the bottom of my heart is if the relationship is gay or lesbian it must be lived by the same rules tha tthe Gay and Lesbian community has to live. TranZGrrlla === = 8 < O ) No,No I don't want to hear that. === Suzy ###### From: Nickie Newsgroups: soc.support.transgendered Subject: Re: Will I still be legally married AFTER SRS?? Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 17:26:32 +0000 Organization: can inhibit spontaneity Lines: 94 Message-ID: <350D60C8.6418E5DE@erewhon.u-net.com> References: <350AADF4.2B16@home.com> <350CDB29.B530AD52@pacbell.net> <350D3274.37962759@erewhon.u-net.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: p-jcs20.nas4.is1.u-net.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04 (X11; I; Linux 2.0.29 i486) Path: ccw.ch!bali.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!newsfeed.usit.net!feeder.qis.net!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!Sprint!news-peer.gip.net!news-lond.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!peer.news.u-net.net!u-net!news.u-net.com!erewhon.u-net.com!nobody Toni Roome wrote: > > Hi Suzan, > > Suzan Cooke wrote: > > > > IMO and I'm using male to females transsexuals only. Having surgery > > would invalidate any marriage to a woman. That would probably be the > > case anywhere in the United States. > > > > It might not immediately. You might even skate for a while but the > > first time insurance companies, divorce courts etc look at it bye bye > > marriage. I see that as being how it should be until Lesbians and Gays > > have the right of same sex marriage. > > > Really this all depends on whether your jurisdiction allows you to > officially correct your sex. Over here in the UK, although we can change > many of our identification documents (Passports, Driving License, etc.) > sex for purposes of marriage is determined by your birth certificate, > and since the Corbett vs Corbett (April Ashley) judgement correcting > this has not been possible. So we can marry, both pre- and (I think) > post-srs in our recorded sex, but heterosexual marriage is not possible. > > Until very recently we were also required to divorce prior to getting > SRS, so couldn't marry anyone at all ((. > > There was an attempt to correct the current situation through a private > member's bill in the last Parliament. This did indeed include a clause > that correcting your sex would not be possible if you remained married. > The bill was not however enacted in to law. > > The C v C judgment is currently also being challenged in the European > Courts, however since a recent judgement that tried to established > rights for same-sex couples under the Sex Discrimination act failed I > doubt that, if successful, we would be able to get a right to correct > our birth certificates *and* remain legally married. > > [snip] > > Basically the argument that you should be able to continue your > > marriage when you have essentially turned it into a Lesbian relationship > > because you were a male when you got married is the worst sort of > > heterosexist male privilege that I've seen presented in these groups. > > > Heterosexist perhaps but the male bit depend on your opening assumption > we are talking MtF. It does cut both ways. I would also only agree if > you are also allowed to marry in your true gender in your jurisdiction. > > > Divorce and become decent Lesbians who fight for the Right of Same > > Sex Marriage. Continue your partnerships the same way the rest of us > > lezzies do. After all you wanted to be women and that means giving up > > the male privilege of being married to a woman. > > > I suspect that if I was allowed to choose I would agree with you and > change my birth certificate (at the expense of de-legitimising my > partnership). But I think you have to look at these matters > pragmatically, in terms of what rights you get together as a couple from > your choice (in the UK this can affect your and your partners tax, > pension and inheritance rights). Which is not to argue with my support > for your political position. > > > As Spunky said the other position is just so male "Screw you, I've > > got mine!" you ought to be ashamed. > > > Before you get too much on your high horsde please remember that ppl are > thinking about their partners too (not neccessarily a male > characteristic). Do forgive me if I jump in with both feet here, but I fail to see why I should lose the financial security which has been my right as a wife because my husband finally seeks treatment for hir gender dysphoria. The whole idea that I should suffer financially because of this is utter garbage! Bad enough that about 10,000 pounds of our savings should be spent on surgery, but I've never complained about that, and indeed never thought to - imagine if I had to agree a divorce settlement first! I think I would feel a whole lot differently. I will fight to extend the rights for same sex marriage - but just because it isn't yet available I don't see why I should suffer here and now. My personal opinion tends to the belief that governments should not legitimise some kinds of living arrangements over others - I would also like to see group marriages of all kinds legalised, or else all marriage privileges done away with - there is no place for governmental interference in lifestyle choice. As to the argument about male privilege, well, all I can say is that I claim my *female* privilege, please - bad enough that I had to sign the ruddy consent form for her srs, (after all it is *her* decision, not mine), buggered if I'll divorce her too! I married my partner for life, I'm afraid, and I don't give up easy. -- Nickie "Say not, "I have found the truth," but rather, "I have found a truth." Gibran, The Prophet, 1923. ###### From: rosepress@aol.com (RosePress) Newsgroups: soc.support.transgendered Subject: Re: Will I still be legally married AFTER SRS?? Date: 16 Mar 1998 23:22:11 GMT Lines: 14 Message-ID: <19980316232201.SAA19802@ladder01.news.aol.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder01.news.aol.com X-Admin: news@aol.com References: <350D60C8.6418E5DE@erewhon.u-net.com> Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com X-Newsreader: AOL Offline Reader Path: ccw.ch!bali.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!newsfeed.usit.net!newsfeed.wli.net!portc04.blue.aol.com!audrey02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail In article <350D60C8.6418E5DE@erewhon.u-net.com>, Nickie writes: >As to the argument about male privilege, well, all I can say is that I >claim my *female* privilege, please - bad enough that I had to sign the >ruddy consent form for her srs, (after all it is *her* decision, not >mine), buggered if I'll divorce her too! I married my partner for life, >I'm afraid, and I don't give up easy. Bravo, Nickie! Hugs -- Ellen Rose Where are we going? And why am I in this handbasket? ###### Message-ID: <350E2C0D.1D2CDE4E@bga.com> Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 01:53:49 -0600 From: Julie Haugh Organization: Girls "R" Good X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (X11; I; Linux 2.0.0 i586) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: soc.support.transgendered Subject: Re: Will I still be legally married AFTER SRS?? References: <350AADF4.2B16@home.com> <350CDB29.B530AD52@pacbell.net> <350D3274.37962759@erewhon.u-net.com> <350D60C8.6418E5DE@erewhon.u-net.com> <19980316232201.SAA19802@ladder01.news.aol.com> <350DC845.4F5749DE@pacbell.net> <19980316230913351101@ppp0a048.std.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit NNTP-Posting-Host: apm5-169.realtime.net Lines: 54 Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.voicenet.com!nntp.texas.net!feed1.realtime.net!apm5-169.realtime.net Karen Elizabeth A. wrote: > > Suzan Cooke wrote: > > > I want everyone here to notice that at no time have I suggested that > > these relationships end. I only feel and I feel this from the bottom of my > > heart is if the relationship is gay or lesbian it must be lived by the same > > rules tha tthe Gay and Lesbian community has to live. > > My question would be why *MUST* that be so beside the fact that it fit's > your agenda? We are in a different situation. In general our lives and > problems (though there is some overlap) are different from those of the > Gay and Lesbian community. I happen to agree with Suzan on two different points. The first is that if you are living as a "lesbian" couple, which you are (like it or not) if you continue to remain together, you should play by the same rules. The second is that these marriages, even if they are not truly "lesbian" in nature, do threaten the ability of transsexual men and women to change their legal sex. Most of the political battleground =seems= to be over "non-op transsexuals", many of whom in Austin are drag queens and trans prostitutes. > To my knowledge no in any offical capacity has tried to link the > legality of existing post-op TS marrage to the changing of birth > certificates. This sounds almost like a scare tactic - one that is > likely to fracture the TS community futher then it already is if pushed > hard. Spunky's reply is a case in point. Painting those who want to stay > married as selfishly risking the rights of all post-op to change their > birth certificates is bougus. BTW since all states do not allow birth > certificate changes do you propose that none should until all do? I am aware of some legal problems here in Austin caused by "non-ops" which could threaten the ability of pre-ops to have their gender changed. It has not, for example, escaped the attention of the judges in Travis County that there are an =awful= lot of "transsexuals" here in town. One of the current issues is a very real fear that if a "non-op" married a genetic natural of the same birth sex, and that fact ever became known, no judge in Austin would sign the orders for gender change -- and that is the only way in Texas to change your gender. The judge who signed my order expressed to me her fear that I would "go back" and not tell the court -- thereby allowing me to enter into a legal marriage to a man. I do know, somewhat indirectly (tho I know her legal name and profession, so she is a verifyable person), a post-op woman who is completely forbidden from marrying a man or a woman. The problems which Suzan describes already exist in some jurisdictions. Messing with legal same-sex marriages does not strike me as very prudent, at least in Texas. -- Julianne Frances Haugh Life is either a daring adventure Mail: jfh AT bga.com or nothing at all. -- Helen Keller ###### Newsgroups: soc.support.transgendered Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsswitch.lcs.mit.edu!world!kaa From: kaa@world.std.com (Karen Elizabeth A.) Subject: Re: Will I still be legally married AFTER SRS?? Sender: news@world.std.com (Mr Usenet Himself) Message-ID: <19980316230913351101@ppp0a048.std.com> Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 04:09:13 GMT References: <350AADF4.2B16@home.com> <350CDB29.B530AD52@pacbell.net> <350D3274.37962759@erewhon.u-net.com> <350D60C8.6418E5DE@erewhon.u-net.com> <19980316232201.SAA19802@ladder01.news.aol.com> <350DC845.4F5749DE@pacbell.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp0a048.std.com Organization: Me And My Shadow X-Newsreader: MacSOUP 2.2b5 Lines: 68 Suzan Cooke wrote: > I want everyone here to notice that at no time have I suggested that > these relationships end. I only feel and I feel this from the bottom of my > heart is if the relationship is gay or lesbian it must be lived by the same > rules tha tthe Gay and Lesbian community has to live. My question would be why *MUST* that be so beside the fact that it fit's your agenda? We are in a different situation. In general our lives and problems (though there is some overlap) are different from those of the Gay and Lesbian community. To my knowledge no in any offical capacity has tried to link the legality of existing post-op TS marrage to the changing of birth certificates. This sounds almost like a scare tactic - one that is likely to fracture the TS community futher then it already is if pushed hard. Spunky's reply is a case in point. Painting those who want to stay married as selfishly risking the rights of all post-op to change their birth certificates is bougus. BTW since all states do not allow birth certificate changes do you propose that none should until all do? If I had to get divorced to get SRS I would - but I do not and will not. My wife is presently not working and has an illness that makes it difficult for her to work. She needs my insurance coverage and other spousal legal benefits. She did not enter into a same sex relationship to her knowledge and should not be penalized for it. You belong both to the TS community and the Lesbian community and your SO is/would be a member of the Lesbian community as well. Not all of us have that connection and situation. Pushing that agenda could well destroy the relationship and make the marriage moot in that situation in any case. You may ask way why two het females would want to stay married. The answer in my case is simple, the sexual component is not and has ever been the primary part of the relationship (it has almost been non-existant due to me since day one - much to my spouses dismay). The issues you stated are real but you know (or should know) they are not the whole story. The whole issue of how it affects the non-TS spouse comes up who is not lesbian as I mention above, as well as children. The issues that TS's face are not the same as non TS gays/lesbians in a lot of ways. That may not be so apparent to you because you transitioned so young that most have not affected you - but that does not mean they are not real. Ideally we should all have transitioned when were in out teens or early 20's. Maybe that will be much truer in the future but it is not so now. Transitioning latter in life does does make things very complicated in more ways then this. Maybe you could learn to have as much compassion for us late bloomers as you do for gays. But of course ideological stances rarely include compassion and often use such absolute reasoning as your posting illustrates. Do you really want the world to work the way you propose in ALL areas? Should there me no exceptions to any requirements for handicapped people for example? Should that golfer NOT been allowed to use a golf cart? Exceptions for special situations is the only compassionate way to do things IMO. Yes the Gay and Lesbian community should be allowed to marry whomever they choose. I would vote for such referendums and politicians who supported that view (all other things being equal) as a matter of principle but that does not make it my fight IMO. -Karen A. ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news-peer.gip.net!news-lond.gip.net!news.gsl.net!gip.net!baron.netcom.net.uk!netcom.net.uk!server3.netnews.ja.net!news.ox.ac.uk!fiona From: fiona@cougar.las.ox.ac.uk (Fiona Martin) Newsgroups: soc.support.transgendered Subject: Re: Will I still be legally married AFTER SRS?? Date: 17 Mar 1998 12:07:58 GMT Organization: Oxford University Lines: 50 Message-ID: <6elp2u$765$1@news.ox.ac.uk> References: <350AADF4.2B16@home.com> <350CDB29.B530AD52@pacbell.net> <350D3274.37962759@erewhon.u-net.com> <350D60C8.6418E5DE@erewhon.u-net.com> <19980316232201.SAA19802@ladder01.news.aol.com> <350DC845.4F5749DE@pacbell.net> <19980316230913351101@ppp0a048.std.com> <350E2C0D.1D2CDE4E@bga.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: cougar.las.ox.ac.uk X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] Julie Haugh (jfh@bga.com) wrote: : The second is that these marriages, even : if they are not truly "lesbian" in nature, do threaten the ability : of transsexual men and women to change their legal sex. Most of : the political battleground =seems= to be over "non-op transsexuals", : many of whom in Austin are drag queens and trans prostitutes. : I am aware of some legal problems here in Austin caused by "non-ops" : which could threaten the ability of pre-ops to have their gender : changed. It has not, for example, escaped the attention of the : judges in Travis County that there are an =awful= lot of "transsexuals" : here in town. One of the current issues is a very real fear that if : a "non-op" married a genetic natural of the same birth sex, and that : fact ever became known, no judge in Austin would sign the orders : for gender change -- and that is the only way in Texas to change : your gender. The judge who signed my order expressed to me her fear : that I would "go back" and not tell the court -- thereby allowing me : to enter into a legal marriage to a man. Julie, You seem to be saying that because non-ts people and legislators are potentially homophobic and transphobic to all but the most "conformist" transsexual people that we should just accept it and be grateful for what legal leeway we have been given, just in case they turn round and take it away from us again. I can understand such feelings if you are someone who is getting a reasonably good deal from the present situation. Surely a much better approach would be to continue to push for allowing MOTSS marriages than trying to force a few married lesbian couples to divorce, even if you do risk losing existing rights in the face of prejudice. It seems more like a step back than forward to me. I dont want to be able to marry a man if a non-op transsexual woman cant either. I dont want to be protected by employment laws if all transgendered people aren't also covered. It has to be all or nothing as far as I'm concerned and I know we'll get there eventually. : Messing : with legal same-sex marriages does not strike me as very prudent, : at least in Texas. You are absolutely right, to my knowledge, fighting for rights has rarely ever been a particularly prudent affair. Thankfully, that hasn't stopped determined individuals and groups in the past. Fiona -- http://cougar.las.ox.ac.uk/~fiona ###### From: jfh@austin.ibm.com (Julie Haugh) Newsgroups: soc.support.transgendered Subject: Re: Will I still be legally married AFTER SRS?? Date: 17 Mar 1998 18:25:26 GMT Organization: Seldom, if ever. Lines: 48 Message-ID: <6emf6m$1cpg$1@ausnews.austin.ibm.com> References: <350AADF4.2B16@home.com> <19980316230913351101@ppp0a048.std.com> <350E2C0D.1D2CDE4E@bga.com> <6elp2u$765$1@news.ox.ac.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: snowball.austin.ibm.com Path: ccw.ch!bali.dolphins.ch!news.planetc.com!leto.ou.edu!hammer.uoregon.edu!News.Vancouver.iSTAR.net!News.Toronto.iSTAR.net!news.istar.net!ais.net!uunet!in4.uu.net!ausnews.austin.ibm.com!jfh In article <6elp2u$765$1@news.ox.ac.uk>, Fiona Martin wrote: >You seem to be saying that because non-ts people and legislators are >potentially homophobic and transphobic to all but the most >"conformist" transsexual people that we should just accept it and be >grateful for what legal leeway we have been given, just in case they >turn round and take it away from us again. I can understand such >feelings if you are someone who is getting a reasonably good deal from >the present situation. Surely a much better approach would be to >continue to push for allowing MOTSS marriages than trying to force a >few married lesbian couples to divorce, even if you do risk losing >existing rights in the face of prejudice. It seems more like a step >back than forward to me. I dont want to be able to marry a man if a >non-op transsexual woman cant either. I dont want to be protected by >employment laws if all transgendered people aren't also covered. It >has to be all or nothing as far as I'm concerned and I know we'll get >there eventually. In my 2+ years of dealing with this crud the general sense I get from people is that as long as transsexualism is something that "really is" this rare, freakish opposition of mental and physical sex, they are more than happy to do just about anything we ask of them. Where the support begins to seriously wane is when M2Fs don't act like women or F2Ms don't act like men. Conformist? Hmmmm. I dunno about "Conformist", but I do suspect that "predictable" and "making an obvious effort" come into play. Pulling a stunt like staying married, failing to register your sex change, not having SRS all start to wear against what people think of as "normal" for a woman. Yes, some born-women are gay. Fact of life -- I've been there, done that, dated a few lesbians as a guy, you name it. But most lesbians aren't off dressing up the more butch women in the couple (assuming butch/femme dynamics for a moment) and trotting down to the local marriage license agency and asking for a marriage license. I'm all for activism and I'm all for same-sex marriage. But what I'm not all for is sneaky, manipulative, back-door behaviors that are going to give judges and legislators fits. If you want legal same-sex marriage, fight for it like the rest of the people out there -- don't "grandfather" your marriage across your sex change. -- Julianne Frances Haugh RS/6000 Security Development, C2 Tech Lead "Resistance is futile! Bldg 905/2F002, 512-823-8817 (Tie 793) You will be evaluated!" I-net: jfh@austin.ibm.com -- C2 of Borg ###### Message-ID: <3517C0BD.80A71B84@IntNet.net> Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 09:18:37 -0500 From: Cris Brown X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.02 [en]C-DIAL (Win95; U) MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: soc.support.transgendered Subject: Re: Will I still be legally married AFTER SRS?? References: <350AADF4.2B16@home.com> <19980316230913351101@ppp0a048.std.com> <350E2C0D.1D2CDE4E@bga.com> <6elp2u$765$1@news.ox.ac.uk> <6emf6m$1cpg$1@ausnews.austin.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit NNTP-Posting-Host: as-clw-10-229.intnet.net Lines: 35 Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news-was.dfn.de!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!198.252.32.180!news.intnet.net!as-clw-10-229.intnet.net Cris here. :) [Julie writes, in part:] > I'm all for activism and I'm all for same-sex marriage. But what > I'm not all for is sneaky, manipulative, back-door behaviors that > are going to give judges and legislators fits. If you want legal > same-sex marriage, fight for it like the rest of the people out > there -- don't "grandfather" your marriage across your sex change. Shouldn't the same reasoning apply to your ongoing battle to "grandfather" your parental rights across your sex change? If you're going to play the woman-as-if-woman-born game, then shouldn't that apply to *every* aspect of your life ... including your children? Women-born-women aren't "fathers," nor are they generic "parents." They are "mothers." But for the post-op M2F TS in a custody fight, the role of "mother" to the children is already taken ... by the birth mother. When you walk into a court and say "I want to retain custody of and/or contact with my children," you are asserting your rights as their *father*. That's "father," as in "male." So what, pray tell, is the difference between you walking into court and saying "I want to retain custody of and/or contact with my children, which rights I established before my sex change, when I was still a male" and another post-op M2F TS who walks into court and says "I want to retain my marriage, which rights I established before my sex change, when I was still a male?" In the context of how you live *your* life, Julie, your entire argument begins to smell suspiciously of "I lost my marriage in my transition, and I don't see why anyone else should be able to keep theirs." Or, at the very least, "*I* have nothing to lose in this whole 'marriage' thing, so I don't think those rights are important." Cris ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!newsfeed2.uk.ibm.net!sackheads.org!ibm.net!newsfeed.ecrc.net!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!news.idt.net!feed.nntp.acc.ca!news2.tor.accglobal.net!not-for-mail From: lblake@ican.net (Laura Blake) Newsgroups: soc.support.transgendered Subject: Re: Will I still be legally married AFTER SRS?? Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998 16:17:00 GMT Organization: TransEqual Lines: 52 Message-ID: <3517db1a.2727245@news.ican.net> References: <350AADF4.2B16@home.com> <19980316230913351101@ppp0a048.std.com> <350E2C0D.1D2CDE4E@bga.com> <6elp2u$765$1@news.ox.ac.uk> <6emf6m$1cpg$1@ausnews.austin.ibm.com> <3517C0BD.80A71B84@IntNet.net> Reply-To: lblake@ican.net NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-169.m2-1.stc.ican.net X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/16.235 On Tue, 24 Mar 1998 09:18:37 -0500, Cris Brown wrote: >In the context of how you live *your* life, Julie, your entire argument >begins to smell suspiciously of "I lost my marriage in my transition, >and I don't see why anyone else should be able to keep theirs." Or, at >the very least, "*I* have nothing to lose in this whole 'marriage' >thing, so I don't think those rights are important." This is consistent with my own expiences with Julie over the past 2 years. Her primary tactic has always been one of jealousy, she just doesn't like it when someone does something she can't. She's the classic over-achiever who can't bear to not be "In charge", "On top" and "Out front" on everything she does. Sadly when such a person encounters someone who can and does pull off something she can't, her need to dominate every situation comes to the fore and she ends up trying to drag others down to her level. In her mind "equality" means "you can't have anything I don't already have", and if the past couple of years are any indicator, she won't change that opinion anytime soon. The very idea that someone did something she failed at sends her off into spasms of red-faced anger. This latest business about TS marriage is one fine example of this. Suzan started the thread, pretty much as a play for attention; but then Haugh locked onto it, clearly because she saw people doing something she failed miserably at. While I do sympathise with people who lose a marriage and contact with their children (I'm divorced and have a 17 year old I've not seen in 12 years) I do have to say that making things worse for everyone else is not the way to make things better for yourself... A lesson Haugh apparently has never learned. What is the essential relationship between "Transsexuals who do not divorce" and "Judges who refuse sex-designator change" ... NONE; there is NONE! Any judge who dishonours precident, refusing to grant change of legal sex could most likely be overturned on appeal, and such a case would cement policy into place making any such outcome highly unlikely in future. There are literally thousands of cases that could be listed as precident, and any judge who ignored such a body of legal policy would likely be subject to serious questions about his competence behind the bench. Haugh has joined Cooke, and on a good day you can see the gouges in the windmill blades from them tilting their swords... but those windmills are still spinning away just fine. It is highly unlikely that two angry transsexuals, playing mostly upon the paranoia of their peers, are going to make any real difference in an issue that has been legally upheld as a part of an institutionalized process for over 40 years.... so don't even worry about them. Just let them rant and rave. Reality, as always, will win out. ----- Laura Blake Our greatest mistakes are those made in acquiescence to others. ----- ###### Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!newsgate.cistron.nl!het.net!Cabal.CESspool!bofh.vszbr.cz!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news-peer-east.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!Sprint!uunet!in4.uu.net!ausnews.austin.ibm.com!jfh From: jfh@austin.ibm.com (Julie Haugh) Newsgroups: soc.support.transgendered Subject: Re: Will I still be legally married AFTER SRS?? Date: 24 Mar 1998 18:17:08 GMT Organization: Seldom, if ever. Lines: 83 Message-ID: <6f8tb4$1ons$1@ausnews.austin.ibm.com> References: <350AADF4.2B16@home.com> <6emf6m$1cpg$1@ausnews.austin.ibm.com> <3517C0BD.80A71B84@IntNet.net> <3517db1a.2727245@news.ican.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: snowball.austin.ibm.com In article <3517db1a.2727245@news.ican.net>, Laura Blake wrote: >This is consistent with my own expiences with Julie over the past 2 years. >Her primary tactic has always been one of jealousy, she just doesn't like it >when someone does something she can't. She's the classic over-achiever who >can't bear to not be "In charge", "On top" and "Out front" on everything she >does. Sadly when such a person encounters someone who can and does pull off >something she can't, her need to dominate every situation comes to the fore >and she ends up trying to drag others down to her level. In her mind >"equality" means "you can't have anything I don't already have", and if the >past couple of years are any indicator, she won't change that opinion >anytime soon. The very idea that someone did something she failed at sends >her off into spasms of red-faced anger. I'm sorry, I fail to comprehend how expecting a =consistent= presentation of a transsexual "woman" to society is something I have failed at. My marriage? Yup, I've been twice married and twice divorced. My marriage was on the skids long before the gender issues came up, tho some of the issues were deeply related to the subject. But this doesn't affect my ability to re-marry. If I lacked morals and ethics I could marry a person of either sex. REALLY. If I lived in a state (pick Arkansas and a woman who has been denied marriage licenses to marry people of both sexes ...) you might have a point. As it stands, all you have is this notion that I'm jealous because someone else has a lover. Well, I got me one of them too. >This latest business about TS marriage is one fine example of this. Suzan >started the thread, pretty much as a play for attention; but then Haugh >locked onto it, clearly because she saw people doing something she failed >miserably at. While I do sympathise with people who lose a marriage and >contact with their children (I'm divorced and have a 17 year old I've not >seen in 12 years) I do have to say that making things worse for everyone >else is not the way to make things better for yourself... A lesson Haugh >apparently has never learned. You haven't the first clue about why Suzan started the thread. You are not Suzan. You also are misstating my intentions. I seek, by getting judges and legislators to see us as "normal men and women" to grant us the same rights and privileges as "normal men and women". I believe that only by getting transsexuals to play by the rules for nons are we going to get judges to see us as anything but mental cases. >What is the essential relationship between "Transsexuals who do not divorce" >and "Judges who refuse sex-designator change" ... NONE; there is NONE! Any >judge who dishonours precident, refusing to grant change of legal sex could >most likely be overturned on appeal, and such a case would cement policy >into place making any such outcome highly unlikely in future. There are >literally thousands of cases that could be listed as precident, and any >judge who ignored such a body of legal policy would likely be subject to >serious questions about his competence behind the bench. Direct relationship? In the State of Alabama there is very much a direct relationship. As regards precedent, I was in court when a woman here in Austin offered precedent for her legal sex change. It was still denied. And the reason given is that there is no statute which allows legal sex change in Texas. >Haugh has joined Cooke, and on a good day you can see the gouges in the >windmill blades from them tilting their swords... but those windmills are >still spinning away just fine. It is highly unlikely that two angry >transsexuals, playing mostly upon the paranoia of their peers, are going to >make any real difference in an issue that has been legally upheld as a part >of an institutionalized process for over 40 years.... so don't even worry >about them. Just let them rant and rave. Reality, as always, will win out. Yes, and the reality in Alabama is "Once a male, always a male". The reality in Travis County is that there is one remaining judge who will sign orders for sex change. The reality in Ohio and Florida is that you cannot change your birth certificate. The reality in these United States (see Ulane v. Eastern) is that we aren't women for Title VII purposes. That's your reality, Laura. -- Julianne Frances Haugh RS/6000 Security Development, C2 Tech Lead "Resistance is futile! Bldg 905/2F002, 512-823-8817 (Tie 793) You will be evaluated!" I-net: jfh@austin.ibm.com -- C2 of Borg ###### Path: ccw.ch!usenet From: Neil.Franklin.remove.this@ccw.ch Newsgroups: soc.support.transgendered Subject: Re: Will I still be legally married AFTER SRS?? Date: Wed, 25 Mar 1998 20:23:51 +0100 Organization: My own Private Self Lines: 123 Message-ID: <351959C7.BCC54C09@ccw.ch> References: <350AADF4.2B16@home.com> <6emf6m$1cpg$1@ausnews.austin.ibm.com> <3517C0BD.80A71B84@IntNet.net> <3517db1a.2727245@news.ican.net> <6f8tb4$1ons$1@ausnews.austin.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.0.27 i486) On Tue, 24 Mar 1998 09:18:37 -0500, Cris Brown wrote: > In the context of how you live *your* life, Julie, your entire argument > begins to smell suspiciously of "I lost my marriage in my transition, > and I don't see why anyone else should be able to keep theirs." Or, at Laura Blake wrote: > This is consistent with my own expiences with Julie over the past 2 years. > Her primary tactic has always been one of jealousy, she just doesn't like it > when someone does something she can't. She's the classic over-achiever Julie Haugh wrote: > I'm sorry, I fail to comprehend how expecting a =consistent= presentation > of a transsexual "woman" to society is something I have failed at. Laura was refering to Cris' remark about losing your marriage, not at you living as an woman. As you snipped it when replying I will assume that you simply overlooked it. Laura Blake wrote: > What is the essential relationship between "Transsexuals who do not divorce" > and "Judges who refuse sex-designator change" ... NONE; there is NONE! Julie Haugh wrote: > Direct relationship? In the State of Alabama there is very much a > direct relationship. Error Julie, accoding to your own words there is a direct relationship between TS who use their ex-male papers to sneak in an lesbian marriage and one specific judge refusing an sex-designator change. Holding on to an existing marriage (which was legally closed) is not the same thing as using decept to gain something explicitely forbidden. And dropping those few pre-transition marriages that can survive will neither stop fraud, nor stop such judges missjudging. What it will do is make transition more diffcult and such make transitioning more expensive. That will definitely stop some TS from doing it, add to their suffering. Laura Blake wrote: > Any judge who dishonours precident, refusing to grant change of legal sex could > most likely be overturned on appeal, and such a case would cement policy > into place making any such outcome highly unlikely in future. There are > literally thousands of cases that could be listed as precident, and any > judge who ignored such a body of legal policy would likely be subject to > serious questions about his competence behind the bench. Exactly. Julie, don't make the mistake common in frustrated political activists of regarding the entire legal system and all people in it as creeps just because a few fail to live up to the job. The system has many built in safeguard for _exactly_ this purpose, to rectify such wrongs. Use them, else your beliefs will become self fullfilling prophesies. And that will be entirely your own fault, neither the judges, the systems nor the fraudists. see in a previous post that you intend to go into law, I hope you will there learn what posssibilities are simply waiting to be used to rectify such wrong decisions. Julie Haugh wrote: > As regards precedent, I was in court when a woman here in Austin offered > precedent for her legal sex change. It was still denied. And the reason > given is that there is no statute which allows legal sex change in Texas. There is no statute for many things allowed. That the judge chose to disallow this one is against the many precedences mentioned by Laura. The TS losing in this case should appeal this case to the upper courts. Have it overturned. This may require going right up to Supreme Court. But this is an discrimination case, they take these seriously, and the chance that Texas would lose there is large. As for the judge involved now denying all TS to change identity: no one would accept an blanket refusal of all social security applications just because some are frauds. This judge is violating every known legal rule. I Julie Haugh wrote: > Julianne Frances Haugh > RS/6000 Security Development, C2 Tech Lead "Resistance is futile! As you work in computer security: The cases you mentinoed about queens getting an female drivers license and then missusing it to marry would in c s be called "exploiting an maldesigned procedure to gain unwarranted privileges". The proper solution in c s is to design secure procedures, not just simply blocking off all access (inclusive that of legitimate users). Perhaps you should try to convince judges of that. Try an approach like this: Tell them that you see their legitimate (I did not say just) interest of preventing homo marriages as dictated by law and that you see it being circumvented. Show them that you accept their point. Then suggest an secure procedure that gives legitimate cases (transitioning TS) female papers but prevents illegitimate cases (frauding queens) from abusing them for homo marriage. Perhaps female papers with an "not valid for marriage purposes" stamp would be possible (that would stop the queens), to be then replaced with an full female identity without restrictions after proven SRS has taken place (no queen will be doing that and for the TS that will open up marriage to their now oposite sex). Generally: offering people who have an problem (the judges trying to stop fraudsters) an solution makes you friends. They will then be more willing to help you. Help others and you will be helped. I don't know what happend exactly in the Travis cases you mention, but a bit of creativity on the part of the TSes would sure have improved the impression the judges had of them. OTOH going in with an classical activists "the legal system is crap" attitude doesn't help at all. -- private: Neil.Franklin.remove.this@ccw.ch http://www.ccw.ch/Neil.Franklin/ office: franklin.remove.this@arch.ethz.ch http://caad.arch.ethz.ch/~franklin/ Can a Microsoft allergy be claimed on job health insurence?