or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Transsexuals & their rights in marriage: KS Supreme Ct. ruling
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Transsexuals & their rights in marriage: KS Supreme Ct. ruling

post #1 of 32
Thread Starter 
<a href="http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascitystar/2869589.htm" target="_blank">Kansas Supreme Court rules against transsexual in estate case</a>

[quote]The Kansas Supreme Court on Friday ruled that transsexual J'Noel Gardiner is a man under Kansas law and thus not entitled to share in the estate of her late husband, Marshall Gardiner of Leavenworth.

The 38-page ruling was a victory for Marshall Gardiner's son, Joe Gardiner, who contested J'Noel Gardiner's claim to half of his father's $2.5 million estate.

In its unanimous ruling, the Supreme Court said that while J'Noel Gardiner had "traveled a long and difficult road" that involved sex-change surgery, she remained a man for purposes of marriage.

"The Legislature has declared that the public policy of this state is to recognize only the traditional marriage between `two parties of the opposite sex,' and all other marriages are against public policy and void," Justice Donald L. Allegrucci wrote.

"We cannot ignore what the Legislature has declared to be the public policy of this state. Our responsibility is to interpret (the law) and not rewrite it. That is for the Legislature to do, if it so desires."

Marshall Gardiner was a widower and former stockbroker. He met J'Noel Ball, an assistant professor of finance at Park University, in 1998. He was 85; she was 40. They were married in September of that year.

He died in August 1999 and did not leave a will. When someone doesn't leave a will, under Kansas law the spouse gets half the estate and the heirs get half.

Joe Gardiner was Marshall Gardiner's only child.

In a recent interview, J'Noel Gardiner said that before the marriage, she told Gardiner that she once had been a man. She said he shrugged, "looked into my eyes and told me he loved me."

Across the nation, conservative and liberal groups watched the case closely. Interest is keen because the implications of "In the Matter of The Estate of Marshall G. Gardiner" are not just legal, they're primordial: What is a man? What is a woman? What is a marriage?

Some people on both sides of the political spectrum believed the case might have been a step toward the legalization of same-sex marriages, which are not recognized anywhere in the United States.

Vermont recognizes same-sex civil unions, which give couples benefits similar to those that come with marriage.

The Gardiner case has drawn national media attention. The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and magazines published articles about the court proceedings.

Bill Duncan, director of Catholic University of America's Marriage Law Project in Washington, D.C., said the issue of gender will come up again because cases are popping up across the nation.

"We have a mission to reaffirm the legal definition of marriage as a man and a woman," Duncan said. "But we haven't thought that much about what makes a man a man and a woman a woman."

In a prepared statement, J'Noel Gardiner's lawyer, Sanford P. Krigel, said he and his client were disappointed at the ruling: "We believe that the Kansas Supreme Court's decision is a step in the wrong direction."

Krigel said an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court was possible. His client also could request another hearing before the state Supreme Court.

Neither J'Noel Gardiner nor Joe Gardiner could be reached Friday.

Joe Gardiner's attorney, William M. Modrcin, said: "We're obviously pleased. We think the court, given the statute it had to interpret, made the right decision."

The state Supreme Court's ruling overturned a May decision by a three-judge panel of the Kansas Court of Appeals. The appellate court had held that there was more to gender than "simply what the individual's chromosomes were or were not at the time of birth."

The appellate court had ordered the case back to Leavenworth County District Court, where in 2000 a probate judge had ruled in favor of Joe Gardiner, 54. The appellate court directed the district court to consider several factors when deciding a person's sex. Those criteria included gender rearing, sexual identity and sex-change surgery.

The Supreme Court rejected those criteria, focusing instead on the letter of the law.

The Supreme Court opinion included definitions of "male" and "female" according to a 1970 Webster's dictionary. The definitions hinge on men's and women's ability to reproduce. The Supreme Court's reliance on those definitions drew either satisfaction or ire from legal experts, depending their viewpoints.

"There are many people who can't produce babies," said Anne Coughlin, a University of Virginia law professor. "Women in Kansas who have had hysterectomies or who are post-menopausal are going to be flipped out that they're not considered a woman. And a man who can't produce sperm isn't a man? Unbelievable."

Coughlin said the institution of marriage, according to Kansas law, seems to exist for reproductive function rather than other common reasons, such as companionship and financial security.

On the other hand, Lynn Wardle, a Brigham Young University law professor, applauded the court for allowing the legislature, as representatives of the people, to decide whether transsexuals can marry a person of their original sex.

Marriage, Wardle said, "is the core unit of social organization. When marriage becomes confused and unclear, as it has in our society, people suffer."

While rebuffing J'Noel Gardiner's main arguments, the Supreme Court went out of its way to say that it was not dismissing her claim lightly.

The ruling noted that J'Noel Gardiner had undergone electrolysis, thermolysis, tracheal shave, hormone injections and extensive counseling, in addition to sex-change surgery in 1994.

"Unfortunately, after all that, J'Noel remains a transsexual and a male for the purposes of marriage," Allegrucci wrote. "We are not blind to the stress and pain experienced by one who is born a male but perceives oneself as female. We recognize that there are people who do not fit neatly into the commonly recognized category of male or female, and to many life becomes an ordeal.

"However, the validity of J'Noel's marriage to Marshall is a question of public policy to be addressed by the Legislature and not by this court."
<hr></blockquote>

I dunno. <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" /> <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />

[ 03-16-2002: Message edited by: CosmoNut ]</p>
Living life in glorious 4G HD (with a 2GB data cap).
Reply
Living life in glorious 4G HD (with a 2GB data cap).
Reply
post #2 of 32
It's shocking these days to find a Judge that still knows that s/he does not make the law but just fules on the written law.

[ 03-16-2002: Message edited by: Scott H. ]</p>
post #3 of 32
[quote]Originally posted by Scott H.:
<strong>It's shocking these days to find a Judge that still knows that s/he does not make the law but just fules on the written law.</strong><hr></blockquote>But the problem was that the legislature didn't have a law addressing what would happen if someone who had a sex-change operation got married.
post #4 of 32
[quote]Originally posted by BRussell:
<strong>But the problem was that the legislature didn't have a law addressing what would happen if someone who had a sex-change operation got married.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Oh yeah, and like this actually happens on a consistent basis...
I AM THE Royal Pain in the Ass.
Reply
I AM THE Royal Pain in the Ass.
Reply
post #5 of 32
[quote]Oh yeah, and like this actually happens on a consistent basis...<hr></blockquote>

<a href="http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/TSprevalence.html" target="_blank">http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/TSprevalence.html</a>

An old survey says that perhaps 1 in 30,000 people are transsexual. That makes for perhaps at least &gt;8300 potential marriages in the US given a population of 250 million. However these figures are ancient history and current research indicates far more people undergo 'SRS' operations, and there are perhaps 40,000 transgendered women living in the U.S. right now. This doesn't even take into account those (an unknown number) who have 'gender issues' but cannot act upon it due to social etc etc pressures and standards.

If the law in Kansas wasn't equipped to handle such a situation, then perhaps the judge was acting on his personal opinions. To deny these people rights and fairness under the law derives from nothing other than sheer bloodymindedness brought on by so much inbred puritannical and medieval BS. Period.
Why of course the people don't want war ... But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a...
Reply
Why of course the people don't want war ... But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a...
Reply
post #6 of 32
If this proves any thing, it's to leave a will.
post #7 of 32
There is two kind of transexual : the real ones and the others (the majority).
The real ones are people with endocrinologic problems, male XY chromosomic people but whit appearance of a women indeed for example. In this cases the surgery may be necessary (if the patient ask for it) and after it the civil status should change also.
Many others are homosexuals people ( i do not say that all the homosexuals people want to change of sex ) who want to change of sex : i think it's a different problem, with different answer.

If i graft on my cheek cat's mustaches, should i be describe on my passport as a tiger ? <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
post #8 of 32
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>

<a href="http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/TSprevalence.html" target="_blank">http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/TSprevalence.html</a>

An old survey says that perhaps 1 in 30,000 people are transsexual. That makes for perhaps at least &gt;8300 potential marriages in the US given a population of 250 million. However these figures are ancient history and current research indicates far more people undergo 'SRS' operations, and there are perhaps 40,000 transgendered women living in the U.S. right now. This doesn't even take into account those (an unknown number) who have 'gender issues' but cannot act upon it due to social etc etc pressures and standards.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Er...Heh.

That link alleges 1 in 2500 males born within the time these surgeries were first made available has already gone through a sex change.

Call me a skeptic. That seems way off. I don't know any transsexuals personally. I don't recall ever meeting one. Sure, I've seen a few, but not 1/2500...and I live in an area that probably has a higher density of them too.

...And I don't think it's because I can't tell the difference...I'm sure there are some out there that I wouldn't even suspect at all, but realistically this is not the case...

[ 03-17-2002: Message edited by: Eugene ]</p>
I can change my sig again!
Reply
I can change my sig again!
Reply
post #9 of 32
There's a lot of misinformation in this thread.

Powerdoc, the people you are referring to as "true transsexuals" are actually ambiguously gendered and can have either an xy chromosome pair, or an xx pair. Transexuals are in no way automatically attracted to their original gender. Their own gender issues are not an integral part of their sexual preference.

Scott H. I've gotta say that these judges are doing more to make the law than can actually be legally justified. They had to use a 30 year old Webster's Dictionary to find a suitibly limited definition of gender. Their ruling has just said that sterile men and women are not men and women and don't have the rights of marriage. This definition can't hold in court, and if they were to use a definition based on chromasomes, there would be several (probably only a few hundred) people who appeared to be women but had internal male sexual organs from birth who have no idea of their internal structure and who's marraiges should be technically void, but no one would know, so they would still be legally married.

The institution of marriage is too effected by religious fundamentalists. If our nation is actually going to have freedom of religion and a separation of church and state. Transsexual as well as homosexual marraiges need to be allowed. Of course the other alternative is to remove all government involvement in marraige and leave that solely to the churches.

pi
post #10 of 32
Ya know...if people could just accept the bodies they were born with (and by extension themselves) we wouldn't have this problem of defining what a transsexual "is." So pathetic that in this day and age we have nothing better to concern ourselves with than what to label some poor schmuck who decided he didn't respect himself and so had his wiener chopped off (so he could be someoene else).

Personally I couldn't care less. If you're dumb enough to do that to yourself, in the end you'll get what you deserve - a lot of grief and regret and confusion. Being born gay is one concept, being born gay and not wanting to admit it, so you change your sex to be who you "wish" you were is another.
Aldo is watching....
Reply
Aldo is watching....
Reply
post #11 of 32
Moogs, read my previous post.

Transexuality has nothing to do with sexual orientation.

Also by your logic, if people were willing to just go around like walking apes, we wouldn't have had the peoblem of difining what civilization is. We are abstract thinkers. Defining things, and thinking beyond the physical object is what makes us human. The idea of transexuality is just a product of being able to think.

pi
post #12 of 32
Pikachu:

I read the main post -- the main point was that the judges had to determine what gender this person was, in order to make a ruling. From that, I wrote my post. And of course transsexuality has to do with sexual orientation - or should we just leave motive out of our myriad abstract reasonings? Taking motive into account would complicate things, wouldn't it?

It's not a great secret that most people who have sex change operations do so because they are attracted to the same sex, but do not want to have relations with them as a member of the same sex. Obviously there will be exceptions -- there are guys who have sex change operations and then still have relationships with women afterward, etc. But for the most part this is about "avoiding" homosexuality - it's about men who want to be with other men, but not AS a man (and vice versa).

You can't tell me therefore, that sexual orientation has nothing to do with it.

[ 03-18-2002: Message edited by: Moogs ]</p>
Aldo is watching....
Reply
Aldo is watching....
Reply
post #13 of 32
[quote]Originally posted by Moogs ?:
<strong>Pikachu:

I read the main post -- the main point was that the judges had to determine what gender this person was, in order to make a ruling. From that, I wrote my post. And of course transsexuality has to do with sexual orientation - or should we just leave motive out of our myriad abstract reasonings? Taking motive into account would complicate things, wouldn't it?

It's not a great secret that most people who have sex change operations do so because they are attracted to the same sex, but do not want to have relations with them as a member of the same sex. Obviously there will be exceptions -- there are guys who have sex change operations and then still have relationships with women afterward, etc. But for the most part this is about "avoiding" homosexuality - it's about men who want to be with other men, but not AS a man (and vice versa).

You can't tell me therefore, that sexual orientation has nothing to do with it.

[ 03-18-2002: Message edited by: Moogs ? ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

Moogs, I think that this issue mught be a little more complicated that you might expect. I don't have studies at hand, so don't ask me to quote sources, but many many transgendered people are not gay men who become women in order to have relationships with straight men. The woman who lived down the street from me used to be a man. a construction worker, at that. And you know what? she's now in a loving stable relationship with a woman. So by your logic, what does that make her?

And just for kicks, I think I'll take issue with the term transsexual, because it doesn't really fit what everyone here is talking about. The term transgendered would be more appropriate.
post #14 of 32
The woman who lived down the street from me used to be a man. a construction worker, at that. And you know what? she's now in a loving stable relationship with a woman. So by your logic, what does that make her?

A person that regretted their decision?
post #15 of 32
[quote]Originally posted by Outsider:
<strong>The woman who lived down the street from me used to be a man. a construction worker, at that. And you know what? she's now in a loving stable relationship with a woman. So by your logic, what does that make her?

A person that regretted their decision? </strong><hr></blockquote>

Nope. try again.
post #16 of 32
[quote]Originally posted by Stroszek:
<strong>The term transgendered would be more appropriate.</strong><hr></blockquote>How 'bout "the transgendered community."
post #17 of 32
[quote]Originally posted by BRussell:
<strong>How 'bout "the transgendered community."
</strong><hr></blockquote>
well yeah. i was speaking more as a label for a single person. sorry for confusion.
post #18 of 32
[quote]Originally posted by Stroszek:
<strong>well yeah. i was speaking more as a label for a single person. sorry for confusion.</strong><hr></blockquote>Well, OK. But get it right next time, bucko. I'm easily offended.
post #19 of 32
[quote]Originally posted by Stroszek:
<strong>

Nope. try again. </strong><hr></blockquote>

wait, so you are saying he? was born male, but was really a lesbian so (s)he had a sex change so he/she(?) could be with other women as a woman? seems a bit extreme to me--what about children? <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
125/51041 (top .2449%)-Amie Street - awesome independent DRM-free music
People really have got to stop thinking there is only one operating system, one economic system, one religion, and one...
Reply
125/51041 (top .2449%)-Amie Street - awesome independent DRM-free music
People really have got to stop thinking there is only one operating system, one economic system, one religion, and one...
Reply
post #20 of 32
Most of you are off-topic.

This isn't about transsexual/transgendered/same-sex marriage, this is about two people that in the midst of a lack of such institutions failed to make/file a last will and testament, and one of them might even have circumvented laws against gay marriage by "transgendering" themselves. To de-evolve this into an argument about same-sex or initially same-sex marriage is to make a mountain out of a molehill. This was just a stupid mistake on these peoples' part, or at least the part transgendered person who knew they essentially had a same-sex marriage, and that mistake was not filing proper paperwork which EVERYONE should file.

I tolerate transgendered people, but I don't personally agree with trying to be something you aren't. That's why, while I do think same-sex marriage should be legal, I don't see anything wrong with this ruling; if people can be allowed to change their gender, why can't people change their race, age, or disabled status? So what if I was originally white? I've made myself black now (excuse me, African American), and EOE should apply to me. So what if I'm under the age of 21? I have undergone operations to appear to be older, thus I am older, and I can drink booze, smoke cigars, and gamble to my heart's desire. So what if I'm not disabled? I'm declaring that I should have been born disabled and I feel in my soul I am disabled, thus I'm changing my disability status to seriously disabled, so I can deservably get Uncle Sam to line my wallets without lifting a finger. It's just silly... in the eyes of justice, you can't claim to be something you are NOT. Unless the case is you've got a chromosome defect, and you're XXY or XYY, in which case you are TRULY a loophole in terms of what gender you are, you can't just make these things up.
art may imitate life, but life imitates tv.
Reply
art may imitate life, but life imitates tv.
Reply
post #21 of 32
What's worse is that it probably varies from state to state. I think in Texas, they make no exception for transsexuals in marriage. You are what your chromosomes say you are. In some states, a person who goes from man to woman can marry a man. In some states such a person can marry neither man nor woman.
I can change my sig again!
Reply
I can change my sig again!
Reply
post #22 of 32
Most of you are off-topic.

I'm off-topic?! You're offtopic! This whole damn board is off-topic!!

Wait, wait, wait, I got a better one.

The topic? You can't HANDLE THE TOPIC!!
post #23 of 32
[quote]Originally posted by Paul:
<strong>

wait, so you are saying he? was born male, but was really a lesbian so (s)he had a sex change so he/she(?) could be with other women as a woman? seems a bit extreme to me--what about children? :confused: </strong><hr></blockquote>

slow down. i'm kinda confused what exactly that was supposed to mean. could you maybe rephrase?
post #24 of 32
[quote]Originally posted by Outsider:
<strong>Most of you are off-topic.

I'm off-topic?! You're offtopic! This whole damn board is off-topic!!

Wait, wait, wait, I got a better one.

The topic? You can't HANDLE THE TOPIC!!</strong><hr></blockquote>

<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />

I suppose arguing about what a "real transsexual is" is relevant, but not really on-topic when we're talking about legalities of giving full marriage rights to those who are transsexuals/transgendered and happen to be married, whether that is legal or not in the state.
art may imitate life, but life imitates tv.
Reply
art may imitate life, but life imitates tv.
Reply
post #25 of 32
There are several degrees of transgenderism...it goes from those who indulge in occasional cross-dressing, to part-time, then fulltime transvestites, to non-operative 'she-males' (with breast augmentation and male organs) to post-operative transgenders. There is a cross-over into the gay community for sure, but the huge majority of (mostly male) 'transpeople' specially the part-timers or 'weekend warriors' are straight, often married, and have felt a 'difference' about themselves from when they were very young and didn't understand what they were feeling. Many get into repeated attempts to quit, out of guilt or shame, but the desire, no matter how heavily suppressed as a rule doesn't go away.

One thing for sure, out of every transgendered person who undergoes the complete series of treatments to become of the opposite gender, there are many, many more who are of the 'part-time' variety. This whole phenomenon is a lot more common than some folk think. I once read a survey done in a major northwest university (I shall look for the link), in which the male population was asked a question which went something like... "have you at any time or the other dressed in clothing designed for the opposite sex?" Out of several thousand replies, over 40% said "yes".

Although transgendered folk tend to congregate in larger cities like L.A., New York, San Francisco etc, they exist no matter where you are; I cannot imagine the kind of hostility an openly transgendered person would get in rural America, such as in a farming community in Oklahoma or in Hicksville, Alabama.

Most of what I have learned about 'trans-people' is from a friend of mine in Hollywood who is a "male-female" and is a very well-adjusted human being, in a stable, loving (not yet married) relationship with a man. Believe me, if some people find life tough, its a picnic in the park compared to the sh1t that society throws at these people, from intolerance, discrimination, insults, abuse, verbal and physical violence, you name it. I think that much of the violence thrown at these people is of the same breed that is common to 'hate-crimes', which are fear-motivated, and are perpetrated by severely prejudiced people who just cannot come to terms with those who are 'different'...and also insecure men who feel that their sexuality is being threatened when they meet a 'tranny'.

There seem to be some people on this board who seem to think that "transgenderism" is a casual choice, and they want to "become something they are not". It seems "that something they are not" is the biological gender of the body were born into, and condemned to live within, until modern medicine can come to the rescue.
Why of course the people don't want war ... But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a...
Reply
Why of course the people don't want war ... But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a...
Reply
post #26 of 32
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>any get into repeated attempts to quit, out of guilt or shame, but the desire, no matter how heavily suppressed as a rule doesn't go away.

There seem to be some people on this board who seem to think that "transgenderism" is a casual choice, and they want to "become something they are not". It seems "that something they are not" is the biological gender of the body were born into, and condemned to live within, until modern medicine can come to the rescue.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I don't discriminate. I don't hate. I wouldn't treat someone I knew was a transgender any different than a non-transgendered person--though I would generally treat them as I would treat the sex which they are, or are at the time at least. (I hope that makes sense.)

However, how you've put it that people can't suppress these "desires" to look and act like the opposite sex is not a "lifestyle choice" in my opinion, it smacks of "psychological condition," if you ask me. When it boils down to the essence of your being, you are what you are, and no superficial operation or hormone pill or fetching shade of transvestite lipstick can change that. It's just pretending. Now, WHY people do this, I would like to understand. Were they sexually abused as a child? As an adult? Did they not have a stable parent figure of the same sex, or opposite sex? Did their parents confuse them about sexuality, or perhaps oppress sexuality altogether? Did they discover at an early age that someone in their family was a cross-dresser or transgendered? Did they not get enough attention as a child, as a teenager, or as an adult? Who knows... I do believe that most transgendered have PSYCHOLOGICAL problems, not physical or genetic ones. In my opinion the only people truly deserving of the name "transgender" are those who have an actual chromosomal defect (a real sex chromosome variation, such as a Klinefelter's male or 47-49 chromosomes compared to the normal 46). At serious risk of sounding insensitive, I feel that otherwise you're just a crossdresser, maybe even with some grotesque bodymods, who thinks he/she/it/he-she/she-he/whatever has something to prove. That's the sad part, that they can't accept who they are or how they developed.

Still, to each his own.
art may imitate life, but life imitates tv.
Reply
art may imitate life, but life imitates tv.
Reply
post #27 of 32
Nice post brad.

That's all I have to say.

Have a nice day.
post #28 of 32
[quote]<strong>
I don't discriminate. I don't hate. I wouldn't treat someone I knew was a transgender any different than a non-transgendered person--though I would generally treat them as I would treat the sex which they are, or are at the time at least. (I hope that makes sense.)</strong><hr></blockquote>

It makes sense, and it's good to know. Just for semantics sake, you wouldn't treat anyone you knew was transgendered, not a transgender. does that make sense?

[quote]<strong>
However, how you've put it that people can't suppress these "desires" to look and act like the opposite sex is not a "lifestyle choice" in my opinion, it smacks of "psychological condition," </strong><hr></blockquote>

interesting idea, but i don't think that the American Psychological Association agrees with you.

[quote]<strong>if you ask me. When it boils down to the essence of your being, you are what you are,</strong><hr></blockquote>

which is the same argument that could be used to argue the opposite argument you are making here. People who are transgendered feel that is who they are. MTFs (Male To Female) feel that they are women. FTMs (Female to Male) feel that they are men.

[quote]<strong>and no superficial operation or hormone pill or fetching shade of transvestite lipstick can change that. It's just pretending. </strong><hr></blockquote>

I'm not sure I would put sex reassignment in the superifical operation category. On a side note, most plastic surgery IS superficial. Do you feel the same way about plastic surgery as you do sex reassignment surgery? After all, if you are old, you are old. Having an operation to make you young is just pretending.

[quote]<strong>Now, WHY people do this, I would like to understand. Were they sexually abused as a child? As an adult?</strong><hr></blockquote>

If being transgendered were linked to sexual abuse, the transgendered community would be much larger than it is now. But the simple fact of the matter is that being sexually abused has no effect on your sexuality. (I'll talk about sexuality a little more later on.)

[quote]<strong>Did they not have a stable parent figure of the same sex, or opposite sex?<hr></blockquote></strong>

Just like what I said above, if this were the case, the transgendered community would be much larger.

[quote]<strong>Did their parents confuse them about sexuality, or perhaps oppress sexuality altogether?<hr></blockquote></strong>

And if this were the case, most people in the United States would have been transgendered in generations past. Sexuality in this country has been oppressed for generations. But most people living in these sexually oppressed times were not transgendered. Although, one could argue that this oppression is one of the root causes of homophobia and transphobia.

[quote]<strong>In my opinion the only people truly deserving of the name "transgender" are those who have an actual chromosomal defect (a real sex chromosome variation, such as a Klinefelter's male or 47-49 chromosomes compared to the normal 46).<hr></blockquote></strong>

You have a right to this opinion. But I also have a right to tell you why I disagree with you. Transgendered is generally defined as "an umbrella term for those 'gender outlaws' who blur the lines of 'traditional' gender expression. Transgendered people include or have been referred to as transvestites, transsexuals, drag queens and kings, cross-dressers, and berdaches, to name just a few." (Source: National Museum & Archive of Lesbian and Gay History, The Gay Almanac, New York, New York, Berkley Book, 1996.) People with the medical conditions you name above already have terms that describe them.

[quote]<strong>That's the sad part, that they can't accept who they are or how they developed.
Still, to each his own.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I would argue here that they have accepted who they are. And that they are acting upon this acceptance.

Now back to sexuality.

Sexuality is comprised of four components: biological sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, and social sex role. Biological sex is, as it sounds, whether a person is male or female. Gender identity is the psychological sense of being either male or female, and does not necessarily match your biological sex. Sexual orientation is the lasting emotional, romantic, and sexual attraction to a certain sex. Social sex role is determined the a person's adherence to the social norms for feminine or masculine behavior.

I know most people didn't bother to read all of this. I know that it is long. Sorry. But to those that did, hope you learned something. cheers.

EDIT: I did proofread, I swear I did!

[ 03-20-2002: Message edited by: Stroszek ]</p>
post #29 of 32
I'd quote you and all that, but I really don't have much to say in reply to what you've said--I just respectfully disagree on some of the points.

The parts about what may be related to the cause of 'transgenderedness,' however, I simply cannot let slip by. Your logic is flawed. I made suggestions of all too viable possibilities that may contribute to the end result of a desire to be transgendered (to have a 'gender identity' different from your 'biological sex' as you so well put it in your educational part at the bottom). You said that if those things were in actuality some of the cause(s) of transgenderedness, there would be more transgendered folk. Why is that flawed logic? Because there is no way to prove that ALL kinds of sexual abuse or sexual repression or all of the other-sex-related cases I suggested as causes are the same, and that ALL people respond to ALL of them the same way, and ALL of those results would HAVE to be a desire to be transgendered, and NO ONE would repress it. Obviously, you can see how that would be a seriously flawed argument, if you had elaborated on that point. If you don't understand that, here's an analogy. I say "Most everybody knows that Windows is boring." You say, "No, that can't be true, or more people would have Macs." The flaw with that argument is the logic that if people do see Windows as boring, that they would HAVE to get/use/buy a Mac.

In any case, all you've said about gender identity vs. biological gender has only reinforced my theory that the desire to be transgendered in anyway is indeed a psychological 'issue' (I'd call it a condition, personally, but as I said, to each his own).
art may imitate life, but life imitates tv.
Reply
art may imitate life, but life imitates tv.
Reply
post #30 of 32
[quote]Originally posted by Pikachu Invasion:
<strong>There's a lot of misinformation in this thread.

Powerdoc, the people you are referring to as "true transsexuals" are actually ambiguously gendered and can have either an xy chromosome pair, or an xx pair. Transexuals are in no way automatically attracted to their original gender. Their own gender issues are not an integral part of their sexual preference.


pi</strong><hr></blockquote>
There is no contradiction with what i say, i just give a example, of a true transexual who have a penis surgery, i did not say that they where all in that case.

My point is that at the exception of true transexual, i think that people should not be allowed to change of civil status or being married. Married deal with social status : a man and a woman. There is no obligatioin to be married or to have childs, but it is the right of a state to promote it. What is the interest of beein married if you are a transexual : believing that you have really change of sex is a mirage.

In France we have created the PACS, it's not a mariage but a contract of communauty life between two persons : i have nothing against this and it's a good solution for people who want to live in a different way and who wanted to be recocnize.
post #31 of 32
bradbower, what about people with CAIS (Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome?)

Unlike people with Klinefelter's Syndrome, these people don't have an additional X chromosome. They are chromosomally male (XY.) However, these people also have:

1) a vagina (but no uterus) instead of a penis
2) undescended testes
3) a female outward appearance after puberty

These people are not affected by androgens like testosterone, meaning they usually end up being ultra-feminine in appearance.

If they are what they are, what the hell are they? And do chemical imbalances in the brain or other less drastic abnormalities play a role in determining who is a 'true transsexual?'

[ 03-21-2002: Message edited by: Eugene ]</p>
I can change my sig again!
Reply
I can change my sig again!
Reply
post #32 of 32
[quote]Originally posted by bradbower:
<strong>I'd quote you and all that, but I really don't have much to say in reply to what you've said--I just respectfully disagree on some of the points.

...
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Well, I respectfully disagree with you too. It's nice to know that we can agree on something.

OK. I'll admit that my argument was flawed. (So now we agree on two things :eek: !) So here's another one that is less flawed. And shorter too!

The American Psychological Association says that is is not an illness, mental disorder or emotional problem. End of argument.

Now it's nap time. Cheers.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Transsexuals & their rights in marriage: KS Supreme Ct. ruling