interesting.....

[mommax3]

Re: interesting.....

mommax3 wrote:Because men can't have babies, that's why. You can tap dance around that all you want, but at the end of the day, that is the fact of the matter.

Except...one is.

No. This person is not a man, no matter what he calls himself (and he has every right to call himself whatever he wants, as far as I am concerned). But the fact that "he" had reconstructive surgery and took testosterone to appear male does not make him male. If he were male, he would not be able to become pregnant. I do agree with what Alison posted, that there needs to be clarification between "sex" and "gender". His *sex* is female, (that's not a phrase that I ever expected to type!) which is what the healthcare professionals are concerned with, although he has chosen male as his gender.

[GrayMatterWife]

Re: interesting.....

From a legal perspective, this is simple. In most states (all, that I've heard of, anyhow), for biological determinations, your gender has nothing to do with what hangs between your legs or what exists between your ears. You can adjust, remove, add on, or otherwise accessorize to your heart's content. And you can go from Mary to Mark and back again. But, in the end, your gender is your chromosomes. You're XX? You're a girl. You're XY? You're a boy. From a legal perspective, there is no complex issue here. You call her a "she" and there is nothing aberrational about her condition.

AFAIK, intersexed people still aren't assigned gender based on chromosomes (necessarily), and chromosomes aren't nearly as cut+dried as you make it out to be there. There are plenty of variations. What would you do then?

Gender in this society is what you live as/present as, and, legally, what your documentation (birth certificate, driver's license) say. This pregnant guy is legally male, lives as a male in all ways except for his reproductive equipment, and you would call him "her"? Why?

That's why inmates who've undergone gender reassignment surgery (transgendered) are sent to prisons with inmates of their birth gender--not their medically adjusted gender. And most prisons also allow transsexual inmates to maintain their hormone therapy treatments while incarcerated--so they continue to manifest (ordinarily) female characteristics, while being housed in a male prison.

"Transgendered" is not exactly the same as "undergone gender reassignment surgery"; plenty of transgendered people never have surgery. From what I can gather, prison policy is up to the prison/state, and is completely separate from considerations in other situations (like medical receptionists refusing to recognize this guy's wife as his wife, simply because he's the one that's pregnant).

I think these questions may have been posed to me, so here my my thoughts, FWIW:

1. Your point re: chromosomally anomalous people is well-taken. There are people who have XXY, for example. I have no idea how a genetically aberrational situation is dealt with under the law. I am not familiar with any case in which it's been an issue--that is, when an actual chromosomal genetic flaw has given rise to a legal determination of gender. Sometimes the law is slow to catch up to science and sociology. I was just offering up how the law deals with sex (and fails to recognize gender), not making a comment on its correctness or completeness.

2. No, gender is not, legally, what's on your license or even what's on your birth certificate. ]If your identification as either a male or a female becomes a real legal issue, it is almost always (that I've ever heard of, anyway), under the law, what your genes say. Again, I am not commenting on the fairness or even the long-term practicality of this approach; I'm just sharing that this is, currently, the way it is, under the law. But, of course, socially, it would be appropriate to consider someone by the gender they identify with, not by the sex that their genes say.

3. Yes, I should have been clearer. In noting the treatment of post-op people in the prison system, I used the phrase "transgendered" and that was not sufficiently precise given that the term is broader than post-ops. I was referring specifically to transgendered people who've medically undergone the procedure for changing their genitalia, and who are now prisoners.

[edited from original]

I thought about it, and realized all the case law I'd seen on appeals and such was related to only pre-op transgendered. I was really interested in the possible difference in treatment of post-ops and non-op/pre-op transgendereds in the prison systems, so I jumped on WestLaw for a quick look-see, and this is what I got. First, my assumption that post-ops and pre-ops are treated the same (set forth in my prior post) is incorrect. (My mistake--why on earth I assumed the law would be consistent is beyond me...). Even though both post-ops and pre-ops are treated as whatever their DNA indicates for identification purposes under family law and divorce law, some prison appear to make a distinction (so, essentially, the prison systems create more confusion, by adding another method of classifying to the mix):

4. The federal prison system does not permit pre-op transgendered people to be housed with members of the opposite biological sex. Most often, people who are pre-ops (or even simply otherwise transgendered in a way that causes their physical safety to be an issue in the general population) can be housed in solitary for their own protection. But this is a very isolating experience--essentially resulting in more extreme punishment than the sentence itself calls for.

I know of no state prison system that permits pre-op or non-ops transgendered people to be housed with members of the opposite biological sex, but I can't swear that I am familiar with every state in the union. It would be up to the discretion of the State Bureau of Prisons for that particular state. There is a potential for a real slippery slope here, though, by allowing people with genitalia inconsistent with their asserted sex to live in the housing of the opposite gender, what's to stop people from just "faking it"? That is, claim a certain gender to be housed with a certain sex?

It appears, however, that at least some prisons have thrown in the towel and drawn the line at post-op prisoners. I guess the theory is, if you've gone all the way to changing the equipment, you're not faking and should be recognized as having the sex your gender indicates.

Some states (and, possibly, the feds--I'm not sure) allow a fully post-op transgendered to be housed in the prison of his "genitals," as versus his birth biology. But, there appears to be little case law dealing with this. The vast majority of the case law relates to non-op/pre-op transgendered. Those appear to be the folks that the system truly doesn't know how to deal with--most commonly, men who in every way look and act like women, but who, by genitalia, remain men. And, somewhat incredibly, of those prisons that allow pre-op or non-op transgendered male inmates to take hormone therapy, but insist that they be housed in men's prisons. Um...has someone not thought this through completely?

A transgendered prison's rights advocacy group (yes, there really is one--several, it appears) reports that approximately 60% of the pre-op/non-op population experiences rape in prisons, as compared to approximately 15% of general population.

A thought comes to mind:

"The degree of civilization in a society can be judged by entering its prisons."--Fydor Dostoevsky.

Anyhow, this is fascinating. The law is even more inconsistent and screwed up than I thought! This is the result: for purposes of family and divorce law, you are your DNA (there is no "gender," only "sex"); for purposes of prison assignment, you are your genitalia--it doesn't matter what EITHER your gender or your sex (by virtue of your DNA) is! So, theoretically, you could be a lesbian, post-op transgendered male, married to a woman, while serving time in a women's prison. Your driver's license and birth certificate would indicate "male" while your prison records would indicate "female." Good grief.

[poky]

Re: interesting.....

I appreciate the clarification, Abigail.

I'm still a little confused by your "call her 'she'" comment in your original post, and I take issue with the "faking" comment in this last post (do you have *any* idea how much crap TGs get? Why would ANYONE 'fake' that, aside from a severe,twisted masochism? Plus, to my understanding, the advocacy groups are fighting for the rights of those with pre-existing diagnoses of gender dysphoria, not just any guy who wears a dress and claims to want to be woman so he can be housed in a woman's prison), but the legal intricacies are more interesting anyway.

The situation in your last paragraph could come about in two slightly different ways, actually:

1) in a state like Texas, where you can't legally change your gender, a MTF TG could marry a woman at any time, be living as a lesbian, and if post-op and sent to a prison that houses based on genitals, be in a woman's prison. Completely consistent, actually, except for the loophole in Texas law that allows for "gay marriage" if one of the partners was BORN the other gender.

2) in a state where you can legally change your gender, if a couple gets married before transition, my understanding is that most (all?) jurisdictions don't require divorce because of gender change, so if a guy were to transition to female post-marriage, they would still be legally married, and if she (formerly he) were post-op and sent to a prison that houses based on genitals, she'd be in a woman's prison. Also consistent, again, except for the loophole that ends up allowing for "gay marriage" in that specific instance (already married pre-transition).

[GrayMatterWife]

Re: interesting.....

See comments in CAPS below. (I'd break it out in that cool way that people do, but I can't figure out how to do that without my posting looking weird...).

I appreciate the clarification, Abigail.

I'm still a little confused by your "call her 'she'" comment in your original post,and I take issue with the "faking" comment in this last post

I'M NOT SURE THERE'S MUCH TO TAKE ISSUE WITH. I WASN'T SUGGESTING THAT A LOT OF PEOPLE FAKE IT OR THAT GENUINELY TRANSGENDERED PEOPLE IN PRISON ARE ACTUALLY FAKING IT. I AM JUST POINTING OUT THAT AN ARGUMENT COULD BE MADE, BY THE PRISON AUTHORITIES, AGAINST ALLOWING PRE-OPS PRISONERS TO BE HOUSED IN OPPOSITE-SEX PRISONS, BECAUSE THERE IS THE POSSIBILITY THAT SOME PEOPLE, WHO AREN'T TRANSGENDERED, MIGHT "FAKE" BEING THAT WAY, TO GET INTO AN OPPOSITE-GENDERED PRISON. WHEN YOU'RE LEAVING THE DETERMINATION OF WHICH PRISON ONE SHOULD BE IN TO THE PRISONERS (ESSENTIALLY, BY CONSIDERING GENDER--WHICH IS SELF-DEFINED--AS VERSUS SEX--WHETHER BY DNA OR BY GENITALIA, YOU MAY BE SETTING YOURSELF UP FOR TROUBLE. LOOKING AT IT FROM THE PRISON OFFICIALS' PERSPECTIVE: PRISONERS OFTEN TRY ALL SORTS OF GOOFY, EXPLOITATIVE TACTICS TO GET THEIR LIVES "IMPROVED." RIGHT NOW, HERE IN THE E.D. MO., WE HAVE A CASE OF A NEO-NAZI PRISONERS WHO'S CLAIMING HE CONVERTED TO ORTHODOX JUDAISM, SO THAT HE CAN GET KOSHER MEALS. HE HAS A HUGE SWATISKA TATOO AND PREACHES ANTI-SEMITISM. IF SOMEONE IS WILLING TO DO THAT, THERE'LL BE SOMEBODY WILLING TO CLAIM HIS "REAL" GENDER REQUIRES HE BE HOUSED WITH THE OPPOSITE SEX. MY ONLY POINT IS, IF YOU DON'T DRAWN A HARD LINE SOMEWHERE (LIKE BY GENITALIA), THE PRISON OFFICIALS ARE OPENING THEMSELVES UP TO UNMERITORIOUS CLAIMS BY EVERY MALE PRISONER WHO SAW BENEFIT IN BEING HOUSED WITH FEMALE PRISONERS--WHICH WON'T BE GOOD FOR ANYONE, INCLUDING GENUINELY TRANSGENDERED PRISONERS.

(do you have *any* idea how much crap TGs get?

YES, I DO. SEVERAL OF MY STUDENTS HAVE BEEN TRANSGENDERED. I WOULDN'T WISH THAT TYPE OF SOCIAL OSTRACISM ON ANYONE, ESPECIALLY A TEENAGER.

Why would ANYONE 'fake' that, aside from a severe,twisted masochism?

SEE COMMENT ABOVE. I WAS REFERRING TO A PRISONERS "FAKING" TRANSGENDEREDNESS TO GET A PREFERRED PRISON. THE REASON FOR DOING THAT IS SELF-EVIDENT IN THE CONTEXT OF STRAIGHT PRISONERS, ALTHOUGH CERTAINLY NOT ADMIRABLE.

. . .

The situation in your last paragraph could come about in two slightly different ways, actually:

1) in a state like Texas, where you can't legally change your gender,a MTF TG could marry a woman at any time, be living as a lesbian, and if post-op and sent to a prison that houses based on genitals, be in a woman's prison. Completely consistent, actually, except for the loophole in Texas law that allows for "gay marriage" if one of the partners was BORN the other gender.

2) in a state where you can legally change your gender, [SEX, I THINK WE MEAN, TO BE ON THE SAME PAGE] if a couple gets married before transition, my understanding is that most (all?) jurisdictions don't require divorce because of gender change,

THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING, TOO, BUT I AM NO EXPERT IN FAMILY LAW. AND IT THAT LOOPHOLE YOU MENTIONED THAT IS THE BASIS OF MY ARGUMENT FOR INCONSISTENCY... IT IS A RESULT THAT IS PRETTY MUCH THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF THE INTENDED PUBLIC POLICY... KIND OF FUNNY, ACTUALLY, IF YOU ASK ME.

so if a guy were to transition to female post-marriage, they would still be legally married, [YES, I THINK THAT'S RIGHT, AT LEAST IN TEXAS] and if she (formerly he) were post-op and sent to a prison that houses based on genitals, she'd be in a woman's prison. [YES.] Also consistent, again, except for the loophole that ends up allowing for "gay marriage" in that specific instance (already married pre-transition).

THERE NEEDS TO BE A UNIFORM WAY OF DEALING WITH DETERMINING SEX FOR PURPOSES OF THE LAW. OTHERWISE, AT SOME POINT, THE GAP IS GOING TO CREATE A REAL HEADACHE--POSSIBLY UNDERMINING PARENTAL RIGHTS, DIVORCE LAW, INHERITANCE LAW, ETC. AND THE PRISONS NEED SOME WAY OF HUMANELY DEALING WITH PRE-OP OR NON-OP TRANSGENDERED ISSUES. IF YOU'RE GOING TO ALLOW A PRISONER TO CONTINUE HORMONE THERAPY WHILE IN PRISON, YOU ARE RECOGNIZING THAT THE PRISONER IS NOT AS "CLEARLY" MALE AS HIS BIOLOGY WOULD INDICATE. TO PROMOTE THIS REALITY WHILE ALSO DISREGARDING ITS EFFECTS ON THE PRISONER SEEMS CRUEL AND DANGEROUS. YOU WOULDN'T THROW A YOUNG WOMAN INTO A MEN'S PRISON AND HOPE THAT SHE MAKES IT.

[poky]

Re: interesting.....

I'M NOT SURE THERE'S MUCH TO TAKE ISSUE WITH. I WASN'T SUGGESTING THAT A LOT OF PEOPLE FAKE IT OR THAT GENUINELY TRANSGENDERED PEOPLE IN PRISON ARE ACTUALLY FAKING IT. I AM JUST POINTING OUT THAT AN ARGUMENT COULD BE MADE, BY THE PRISON AUTHORITIES, AGAINST ALLOWING PRE-OPS PRISONERS TO BE HOUSED IN OPPOSITE-SEX PRISONS, BECAUSE THERE IS THE POSSIBILITY THAT SOME PEOPLE, WHO AREN'T TRANSGENDERED, MIGHT "FAKE" BEING THAT WAY, TO GET INTO AN OPPOSITE-GENDERED PRISON. WHEN YOU'RE LEAVING THE DETERMINATION OF WHICH PRISON ONE SHOULD BE IN TO THE PRISONERS (ESSENTIALLY, BY CONSIDERING GENDER--WHICH IS SELF-DEFINED--AS VERSUS SEX--WHETHER BY DNA OR BY GENITALIA, YOU MAY BE SETTING YOURSELF UP FOR TROUBLE. LOOKING AT IT FROM THE PRISON OFFICIALS' PERSPECTIVE: PRISONERS OFTEN TRY ALL SORTS OF GOOFY, EXPLOITATIVE TACTICS TO GET THEIR LIVES "IMPROVED." RIGHT NOW, HERE IN THE E.D. MO., WE HAVE A CASE OF A NEO-NAZI PRISONERS WHO'S CLAIMING HE CONVERTED TO ORTHODOX JUDAISM, SO THAT HE CAN GET KOSHER MEALS. HE HAS A HUGE SWATISKA TATOO AND PREACHES ANTI-SEMITISM. IF SOMEONE IS WILLING TO DO THAT, THERE'LL BE SOMEBODY WILLING TO CLAIM HIS "REAL" GENDER REQUIRES HE BE HOUSED WITH THE OPPOSITE SEX. MY ONLY POINT IS, IF YOU DON'T DRAWN A HARD LINE SOMEWHERE (LIKE BY GENITALIA), THE PRISON OFFICIALS ARE OPENING THEMSELVES UP TO UNMERITORIOUS CLAIMS BY EVERY MALE PRISONER WHO SAW BENEFIT IN BEING HOUSED WITH FEMALE PRISONERS--WHICH WON'T BE GOOD FOR ANYONE, INCLUDING GENUINELY TRANSGENDERED PRISONERS.

Right. I get that. Once they're *in* prison, without a pre-existing diagnosis of GID/gender dysphoria, they're SOL, I agree, because yeah, I can see someone trying to fake it in that situation. If they *do* have a pre-existing diagnosis, though, I think that should be given consideration, and I believe that is what the advocacy groups are fighting for.

THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING, TOO, BUT I AM NO EXPERT IN FAMILY LAW. AND IT THAT LOOPHOLE YOU MENTIONED THAT IS THE BASIS OF MY ARGUMENT FOR INCONSISTENCY... IT IS A RESULT THAT IS PRETTY MUCH THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF THE INTENDED PUBLIC POLICY... KIND OF FUNNY, ACTUALLY, IF YOU ASK ME.

It is, yes, and it's fortunate for those few couples who fall into the legally acceptable category; though they still get a raft of crap, they at least have some legal protections/privileges that aren't afforded to gay couples who were both born the same gender.

THERE NEEDS TO BE A UNIFORM WAY OF DEALING WITH DETERMINING SEX FOR PURPOSES OF THE LAW. OTHERWISE, AT SOME POINT, THE GAP IS GOING TO CREATE A REAL HEADACHE--POSSIBLY UNDERMINING PARENTAL RIGHTS, DIVORCE LAW, INHERITANCE LAW, ETC. AND THE PRISONS NEED SOME WAY OF HUMANELY DEALING WITH PRE-OP OR NON-OP TRANSGENDERED ISSUES. IF YOU'RE GOING TO ALLOW A PRISONER TO CONTINUE HORMONE THERAPY WHILE IN PRISON, YOU ARE RECOGNIZING THAT THE PRISONER IS NOT AS "CLEARLY" MALE AS HIS BIOLOGY WOULD INDICATE. TO PROMOTE THIS REALITY WHILE ALSO DISREGARDING ITS EFFECTS ON THE PRISONER SEEMS CRUEL AND DANGEROUS. YOU WOULDN'T THROW A YOUNG WOMAN INTO A MEN'S PRISON AND HOPE THAT SHE MAKES IT.

Exactly, yes. I agree completely.

I'm not sure it's possible to have a single uniform way to determine legal gender that will work well for all situations. There's state vs federal issues, just to start with. It already *is* causing headaches (and worse!), and we're fumbling toward solutions in the places where it causes the worst headaches (as you say, family law and prisons are big ones), and we're obviously not there, yet, and it's something most people don't even like to *think* about, which further hinders progress.

I just wish we'd made enough progress as a society that the pregnant guy's health care professionals would be respectful enough to refer to him as "him". Maybe someday we'll get there.

Re: interesting.....

To me medicine often defines things in a way that is medical and not of culture. For instance a miscarriage is called an abortion. I *hate* that. A woman who is suffering an unwanted miscarriage, does not want to see the word abortion on her chart, or told that she had an abortion - yet that is the way it is defined in medicine. There are many other such times when medical language and common day language do not match up.

I agree, the man is not a man, thus saying she when reporting on her pregnancy is correct IMO. Though if she wants to be called he when spoken to, not written (e.i. dicated in notes) then fine. I mean to be quite honest, if a dr is open to taking this case, I assume they would have no problem calling the patient he.

And I for one, don't think it is societys duty to feel comfortable with these issues of very unnatural life choices. Even if the person feels like they are the other sex, and it feels unnatural to be the birthed sex, it is still very unnatural to change sex completely and wholly. So even if one thinks it's unfair to feel uncomfortable with such a drastic change, in the end it is still a drastic change and one that is very complicated and by it's very nature will cause uncomfortable situations, including the whole process of changing gender.

I feel strongly though, that even if one is uncomfortable with someones life choices (baring they are actually hurting another person), that you always treat someone with respect.

And that is where I think this conversation hits. What exactly is societys duty in treating someone TG with respect? What does treating them with respect mean? If it means acceptance completely, and nothing less is seen as true respect, then that goes smack against the arguement of society needing to keep openminded. Openminded can not mean seeing only your way as right and shunning anyone whom opposings it. Openminded means, ok this is my thoughts, but I will respect you as a human and see that you are treated as I would treat any other person. Not, if you don't agree you are evil and a biget. So maybe that is the hardship some people in the medical world feel when dealing with such an unusual situation, albeit very emotional one at that.

Very intersting converation.

[spotty_dog]

Re: interesting.....

I definitely hear what you're saying, Julie. I disagree that he's not a man, but that's just semantics, and like you've said about medical terminology or like Abigail has shown us about legalese, there are different usages out there for these words.

But yeah, encountering transgendered people and trying to get inside such a person's mind in order to empathize is really far from most of our normal experiences. It's going to be natural for those of us who don't encounter many transgendered people to have a bit of an awkward time getting our minds around it. I'm almost positive that if I were to be introduced to a tall, deep-voiced woman with an Adam's apple tomorrow, I'd stammer and feel unprepared socially to speak comfortably with her!

But it just really doesn't sound like the doctor or his staff were acting professionally. The doctor insisting he shave his facial hair is a big sticking point for me. Would any of us accept being told we had to shave our armpits in order to be feminine enough for a reproductive endocrinologist to help us with our fertility issues? The failure to be treated professionally just seems like an extra burden that this couple shouldn't have to bear, with all that they are already going through in order to have a child to love. That's the main thing I'm thinking of when I say they deserve to be respected: just...don't go out of your way to make their lives harder, for goodness sake.

Re: interesting.....

Alison - I agree wholeheartedly with your post.

[poky]

Re: interesting.....

That's the main thing I'm thinking of when I say they deserve to be respected: just...don't go out of your way to make their lives harder, for goodness sake.

Exactly.

[GreyhoundsRUs]

Re: interesting.....

[DrWahoo]

Re: interesting.....

I haven't read all the posts so forgive me if I am not addressing certain things. I always get a little queezy when someone uses the term religious views, because I feel like here we go again misinformed Christians acting out. Anyway, since I was diagnosed with Gender Identity Disorder once, I feel for this woman and hope that God really blesses the child. I cringe at the idea of feeling emotionally a man when you are a woman. Seriously what the hell does that mean. Has anyone gone into the head of every man and determine that all of them are the same. I know for me I simply could not identify with the other women in my family because they grew up in the Donna Reed era. I was ridiculed for loving sports and enjoying the simplicity of how boys respect daring feats. But interests don't change just because puberty kicks in. I strongly believe that if someone is told a hundred times over that they are different or that they are masculine it will eventually stick. Luckily for me though I couldn't necessarily keep up with the hot cheerleaders, but I didn't have to beg for a date to prom either. So a guy or two showed me what Aretha meant in the song "Natural Woman" and that was the end of any potential gender issues