Lesbian Couple "Looks into Transgender" as a Loophole to Get Married

[Girl_On_Fire]

I'm not transgender but I identify as a queer femme and am attracted to male-identified butches and transgender guys.

That being said, somebody posted this article on Facebook and I was infuriated by what I saw and read. Apparently, this couple, who at one point at least, identified as lesbian, "looked into transgender" so they could get married.

One partner underwent gender reassignment for the sole purposes of being able to legally marry their significant other. That's it. This woman never identified as transgender or at least does not say so in the interview. The article made it clear that this decision was based only on "getting around the marriage laws".

I think this confuses and undermines the concept of transgender. I do not want people who know little-to-nothing about transgender people to start thinking that this is what we "do" just so we can legally tie the knot.

In my opinion, this article is an insult to transgender people and their partners.

How do you feel about it?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/14/oprah-show-guest-christine-jacki-marriage_n_5584480.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000050&ir=Gay+Voices

[TexasCowboi]

It trivialized the transgender community. I am still at a loss for words really.

[AnAwkwardAccident]

....I don't even have words. I am infuriated. ....wow.

[*Anya*]

There is more than meets the eye here.

Let's see, in 2006, Christine told her (gay) husband that she was gay.

In 2008, she went back to dating men.

Then, sometime during that Oprah show in 2006 or 2008, Jacki saw Christine send said: "Wow, Christine is beautiful".

Then, sometime between 2008 and 2013, Christine and Jacki started dating.

I guess Christine came out again?

Then, they decided to get married but couldn't legally so Jacki changed her sex?

Not because Jacki identified as transgendered but just to be able to marry Christine?

I wonder about both of their mental statuses.

I am ordering up full psych consults times two.

Yes, it trivializes coming out for transfolk and trivializes coming out for lesbians.

It is insulting for all of us and for all of our struggles that any of us could so easily turn on and off who we are with a switch.

[Words]

I'm not seeing what everyone else seems to be seeing.

I'm seeing two queers who fell in love, one of whom wanted to ensure that they'd enjoy all the rights to which straight folks are entitled simply through being straight at a time when that wasn't possible without one of them changing their gender. Result? Two happy queers.

My partner, who has been on T for many years now and who has also had his breasts removed - but who identifies as third gendered, not male, and who has no issue whatsoever with still being classed as female from a legal point of view nor any desire to change that to male, - would have done exactly the same thing for me had we not found another way of being able to enjoy the same rights as straight folk (in this case, the right to live together in the same country). I know, because at one point, with no other viable solution in sight, we discussed it.

And?

[~ocean]

I had to watch this video twice to understand what you were seeing , I have to disagree ~ reasoning being , Jackie seemed very masculine on her own w/ out her marriage to Chris. The thought of transgender came after YES ! But it was from her love and devotion to take care of( her ) wife. It was Jackie that seeked an alternative way to change his sexual identity willingly ,to secure her (wife's ) well being after his demise. That is a selfless love. The timing of Jackie's decision may have came after the overwhelming love he had for his wife. The intension wasn't to undermine transgender lifestyle ... or was it taking matters into his own hands and saying I will provide for my wife as a legal man to do so , I see the POSITIVE in Jackie's actions. Not the negative. I think they make beautiful couple ~ and God Bless their union ~

[Gemme]

I had to watch this video twice to understand what you were seeing , I have to disagree ~ reasoning being , Jackie seemed very masculine on her own w/ out her marriage to Chris. The thought of transgender came after YES ! But it was from her love and devotion to take care of( her ) wife. It was Jackie that seeked an alternative way to change his sexual identity willingly ,to secure her (wife's ) well being after his demise. That is a selfless love. The timing of Jackie's decision may have came after the overwhelming love he had for his wife. The intension wasn't to undermine transgender lifestyle ... or was it taking matters into his own hands and saying I will provide for my wife as a legal man to do so , I see the POSITIVE in Jackie's actions. Not the negative. I think they make beautiful couple ~ and God Bless their union ~


Coming out as transgender is hard. It turns ones life upside down and completely changes that person's relationships with everyone. Parents grieve for daughters and sons lost, jobs are lost, relationships are ended or have to begin over again from a new base point. It's tumultuous and it's hard as Hell.

Coming out as transgender isn't a "loophole". Jacki, who still identifies as female, as she is still referred to as "she" and is addressed as Christine's "wife". Not husband. Wife.

To do that, to go through that process....not because one feels that they are truly transgender, but in order to get married to someone is a personal betrayal to those who are actually transgender and who have gone through the process with truly authentic intentions. It does trivialize the process of transitioning when someone says oh, I can do it with no thought and *snap* everything changes and it's all good.

Whether it was their intention or not, it does undermine what transfolks go through. Their actions show little thought for the process or the ramifications and feel quite childish to me.

I want to get married.
*footstomp*

In their eyes, they had a problem and they solved that problem. That's all it was for them. I agree with Anya. There's a screw loose in both of them. It may be love and it may be true love, but what happens if they split up? Then Jacki, who identifies as 'she', has all this paperwork that says 'he' and no wife. Would that double mastectomy and effort be worth it then?

I mentioned this in the ask a trans person thread but what really gets my goat is when Christine says that Jacki is "authentic".

Yeah, living a lie, and publicly taunting it, is totally authentic.

Totally.

[DapperButch]

I am not convinced that Jacki did a "selfless" act.

This is my take on it. Either Jacki consciously or unconsciously wanted to transition, or was already "in the middle", so it wasn't a big deal to her.

I think she is happy living as male and I think it is possible/probable that Jacki liked the opportunity to get her breasts removed. Until top surgery, I bound my breasts for 20 years. I know what a bound chest looks like. The picture of them on the motorcycle? I would put up $100 bet that her chest is bound. I don't think it was a big loss for her.

Here is the thing. In CA Jacki needed to get a top surgery (although they say mastectomy, which is different) in order to legally identify as male, in order to marry. Ok, so she did that. Did she need to take testosterone? Does she need to (clearly) work out? No. Jacki could easily still be presenting as a masculine female if that is what she wants. Lots of women have mastectomies (which means even less breast tissue left after surgery). Does it no longer make them women? Of course not!

I say Jacki seized an opportunity to transition. I think internalized transphobia is at work here, which is why she didn't transition prior to now. Again, conscious or unconscious.

So, that is my thoughts on that.

The question though was how it presents to the public. I am less concerned about it trivializing the trans* community and more concerned as to how it makes female loving females look. It feeds right into the myth that "women really want to be men".

Late for work or would go on a rant about the above!

[Kobi]

Once I got passed my own need for linear thinking, orderliness, and logic I actually understood this. I think.

Based on the information and the way it was presented, I can see how one might think of this as a ruse, a trivializing of the trans experience, and/or an odd means to an end.

However, when taken as a whole, it demonstrates to me how the process to knowing, accepting, and living as ourselves is not always a well defined journey from here to there.

It starts with a supposedly hetero male and female getting married and then "discovering" they are both gay. We all know gayness doesnt pop up overnight. And accepting ones gayness is a process of discovery, experimentation, and fiddling to find what works for them.

As for Chris and Jackie. I have a hard time believing someone who identifies with their femaleness will just suddenly be willing to abandon this just to provide financial security for their partner through the privileges of marriage.

I have a hard time believing one could even get through the process of transitioning without there being some element of truth to it, and desire to do so.

Thus, it seems to me, the marriage thing was a method of transitioning while appearing selfless was really self serving.

[Nadeest]

I already commented on this, in the trans news thread, so I will try to refrain from commenting, here.

[candy_coated_bitch]

Meh. I am not so much bothered by this article. I think it is poorly written and poorly conceived. I don't think the issue is presented well--but it was a 3 min. clip from an Oprah show and a couple paragraphs on Huffington Post online.

I am inclined to agree with Dapper (and Kobi as well) and think this was not such a huge sacrifice on Jacki's part and probably that there is more going on gender-wise than the article suggests. Maybe even than Jacki herself knows, because we aren't always completely self aware when it comes to our motivations.

Jacki is masculine presenting. And was before she "looked into transgender". I agree her chest looks pretty damn flat in the earlier pictures. I don't know about you guys--but if I couldn't get married my first thought would NOT be to transition. It's a little more complicated being feminine presenting. Maybe. If one was a strongly identified butch woman, would that woman automatically think of chest surgery (they called it a double mastectomy in the article and video so it's unclear what exactly it was) and legally changing her gender to male in order to get married? I just don't think that's where a person's head normally goes to immediately.

Of course, yes--she could have a screw loose as well LOL. But I am guessing this was not a huge loss or sacrifice to Jacki. To many other people it would be. Which is why most people in the world don't transition in order to get married. I am obviously not going on much (and no one else is either, by the way) but it almost seemed to me as though this might have been a way out of talking about gender issues with Christine. Or, that she inhabits a gender space where this in actuality is NOT a huge deal to her.

Again, short poorly written article and video with not much to go on. I think if it were presented differently it wouldn't seem trivialize a variety of different identities.

Actually, now I am giggling about Christine and her former husband coming out to each other. Which absolutely makes coming out in a heterosexual marriage seem easy. "Honey, I'm gay." "Awesome, so am I!"

[Linus]

To the topic at hand, I commented in another thread but I will mention it here. This sets a dangerous precedent, IMHO. It treats the decision to medically transition as a trivial one and more as a means to a financial end (a way to get around things) than as a means of self-existence (survival). That's a big distinction and it's hard enough for many to exist (i.e., get jobs, get food, get housing, just live).

What I find more frustrating and mindbending is that this decision was done during the time that the court was deciding same-sex marriage in California. They could have easily gotten married elsewhere and waited. Federally they would have been protected and it would have been a matter of time that California would have covered it.

I had to watch this video twice to understand what you were seeing , I have to disagree ~ reasoning being , Jackie seemed very masculine on her own w/ out her marriage to Chris. The thought of transgender came after YES ! But it was from her love and devotion to take care of( her ) wife. It was Jackie that seeked an alternative way to change his sexual identity willingly ,to secure her (wife's ) well being after his demise. That is a selfless love. The timing of Jackie's decision may have came after the overwhelming love he had for his wife. The intension wasn't to undermine transgender lifestyle ... or was it taking matters into his own hands and saying I will provide for my wife as a legal man to do so , I see the POSITIVE in Jackie's actions. Not the negative. I think they make beautiful couple ~ and God Bless their union ~

~ocean, I'm going to take issue with this (as an individual). Being a transsexual or transgender individual is not a "lifestyle". No more than being gay is a "lifestyle". Being vegan is a lifestyle. Being athletic is a lifestyle. Being a surfer girl is a lifestyle.

Being trans is not a lifestyle. Being trans is living.

[~ocean]

To the topic at hand, I commented in another thread but I will mention it here. This sets a dangerous precedent, IMHO. It treats the decision to medically transition as a trivial one and more as a means to a financial end (a way to get around things) than as a means of self-existence (survival). That's a big distinction and it's hard enough for many to exist (i.e., get jobs, get food, get housing, just live).

What I find more frustrating and mindbending is that this decision was done during the time that the court was deciding same-sex marriage in California. They could have easily gotten married elsewhere and waited. Federally they would have been protected and it would have been a matter of time that California would have covered it.



~ocean, I'm going to take issue with this (as an individual). Being a transsexual or transgender individual is not a "lifestyle". No more than being gay is a "lifestyle". Being vegan is a lifestyle. Being athletic is a lifestyle. Being a surfer girl is a lifestyle.

Being trans is not a lifestyle. Being trans is living.



I agree Linnus ~ it was a poor choice of words w/ no intent to offend ~

[Words]

I'm reminded here of how in defending the sanctity of marriage as a union between a man and woman, the straights would make such outrageous statements as next folks will be wanting to marry their dogs/goats/whatever and we'd all be up in arms about it. This is ONE couple. Regardless of their motives, regardless of how far along the butch/transgender/whatever spectrum Jackie was at the time of the surgery, regardless of whether or not she/he now considers herself/himself a woman or a man, regardless of anything, who the hell are we to say they their marriage is a sham and, better still, that they're mentally unstable because of x, y, or z? Do we really want to be the new oppressors? I know I don't.

I am by no means wanting to trivialize the journey of anyone who is transgendered. I know what that journey looks like. I do think, however, that we need to think of the kind of precedent that we're setting here in not displaying acceptance of what, for all we know, is a healthy, loving, relationship.

Words

[Words]

I say Jacki seized an opportunity to transition. I think internalized transphobia is at work here, which is why she didn't transition prior to now. Again, conscious or unconscious.

I'm not so sure about the internalized transphobia, but I do agree that in all probability, Jacki was glad of what she/he perceived as 'a reason' to transition. Either way, if there's one more queer in the world who's happier and more at peace now than they were before due to their transitioning, then surely, that's a good thing, no?

[Words]

One more thing...

To anyone considering responding to my 'one couple' comment by saying, but what if it becomes ten couples, or 100, or 1000 - which in many countries, is still a possibility I guess - my answer would be this. Rather than expend energy on criticizing those who use the 'transition loophole' as a means to an end (i.e., marriage and the associated benefits), why don't we focus our energies on condemning the antiquated laws and beliefs that force such couples into seeking out these 'loopholes' in the first place? On saying to the world, see how ridiculous your laws are, how in the end, all that matters is love and no matter how hard you try to deny us, we will, in the end, overcome?

Words

[dykeumentary]

I prefer to think of this situation as exposing the ridiculous state of current humankind.

There is nothing "normal" about marriage. It is a way of organizing groups of people into taxable pairings, and creating children that will be socialized correctly into the stare's system. Everyone knows that people will love whom they want to love. Crazy ideas of a peron's time in history dictate how the groups are arranged. (Old Testament, anyone???)
It's also been firmly established that the idea of a binary gender is also in the service of oppression. People have always and always will express their personality in the way that is true and real for them --UNLESS that expression is interrupted by systems of control that enforce the rules of their community (in the case of trans people, by killing them). (Multilating intersex babies, included).

So if two people want to live/love- I say GO FOR IT. Want to get married? Sit in a sweat lodge? Have a tea ceremony? That's not my business.
Marriage is a cultural/religious event - like first communion. It's just that the State awards goodies to people who do it- it has nothing to do with anything natural or biological.

The State also awards goodies who play nice with their fantasy that there being only 2 ways of expressing our bodies's truth.
Transsexual and transgender people have always and will always exist. Trans people are natural. The culture we live in now - like most before now - make laws and medical standards that want to hurt trans people- THAT is UNNATURAL.
I prefer to fight the systems that have the power to dimish trans people's life chances. I won't try to squeeze into to somebody else's rituals, nor will I support preposterous ideas of only "coupled relationships" being valid , nor will I promote any gender rigidity, even within one person's life.

[BullDog]

I of course don't know Jacki, but there are many, many butches who would love to have chest surgery who do not identify as transgender (including myself), so that part of it doesn't strike me as a tremendous sacrifice.

The change in legal status to male could have some advantages- including a legal heterosexual marriage- but I really wonder if s/he has really thought through all of the legal and social consequences of changing her sex and being viewed by others as transgender/transsexed. There doesn't seem to be any indication of it in the video, but all it is is a short clip.

Christine seems to be a bit of a media creation- it just seems a bit odd, but I suppose Oprah does follow ups and she really did have a double coming out as gay with her ex husband and is now married to a woman who transitioned.

This could be viewed as an affront to same sex marriage as much as it is to transgender, so I do find the responses here to be interesting.

I am not offended either way, I just hope they really thought this through. From what little I saw, I do have my doubts that they did, but I certainly wish them the best. Love is love.

I too think it is the institution of marriage- and who qualifies for a legal marriage and who doesn't- that is the real issue to be concerned about.

[Girl_On_Fire]

To the topic at hand, I commented in another thread but I will mention it here. This sets a dangerous precedent, IMHO. It treats the decision to medically transition as a trivial one and more as a means to a financial end (a way to get around things) than as a means of self-existence (survival). That's a big distinction and it's hard enough for many to exist (i.e., get jobs, get food, get housing, just live).

What I find more frustrating and mindbending is that this decision was done during the time that the court was deciding same-sex marriage in California. They could have easily gotten married elsewhere and waited. Federally they would have been protected and it would have been a matter of time that California would have covered it.



~ocean, I'm going to take issue with this (as an individual). Being a transsexual or transgender individual is not a "lifestyle". No more than being gay is a "lifestyle". Being vegan is a lifestyle. Being athletic is a lifestyle. Being a surfer girl is a lifestyle.

Being trans is not a lifestyle. Being trans is living.

I am not convinced that Jacki did a "selfless" act.

This is my take on it. Either Jacki consciously or unconsciously wanted to transition, or was already "in the middle", so it wasn't a big deal to her.

I think she is happy living as male and I think it is possible/probable that Jacki liked the opportunity to get her breasts removed. Until top surgery, I bound my breasts for 20 years. I know what a bound chest looks like. The picture of them on the motorcycle? I would put up $100 bet that her chest is bound. I don't think it was a big loss for her.

Here is the thing. In CA Jacki needed to get a top surgery (although they say mastectomy, which is different) in order to legally identify as male, in order to marry. Ok, so she did that. Did she need to take testosterone? Does she need to (clearly) work out? No. Jacki could easily still be presenting as a masculine female if that is what she wants. Lots of women have mastectomies (which means even less breast tissue left after surgery). Does it no longer make them women? Of course not!

I say Jacki seized an opportunity to transition. I think internalized transphobia is at work here, which is why she didn't transition prior to now. Again, conscious or unconscious.

So, that is my thoughts on that.

The question though was how it presents to the public. I am less concerned about it trivializing the trans* community and more concerned as to how it makes female loving females look. It feeds right into the myth that "women really want to be men".

Late for work or would go on a rant about the above!

My problem with this article and the way it was represented is that it used the word "loophole" to describe transitioning. I'm not picking on the couple, just the fact they are allowing themselves to be "poster children" for the gender binary. It bothers me.

Perhaps Jacki honestly did want to come out as transgender and used this opportunity to do so. I'm not sure. I can't speak for the couple themselves, just how they are (unintentionally?) representing an entire community of people who are already subjugated to begin with.

[dykeumentary]

Just a friendly reminder, because I know that we all want to be good people here-

Please lets not use expressions like "having a screw loose" or "ordering a psych consult" when we mean to say that we don't agree/understand someone's decision.
The mental health industrial complex has been used as a weapon against GLBT and gender-noncomforming people for years. The stigma of "being crazy" also keeps people who need mental health care from getting it.

Thanks! Now back to lively debate!

[vagina]

Personally, my feeling is that this perfectly describes the transgender community or movement.

[Linus]

Personally, my feeling is that this perfectly describes the transgender community or movement.

How does this describe the transgender community?

[*Anya*]

Just a friendly reminder, because I know that we all want to be good people here-

Please lets not use expressions like "having a screw loose" or "ordering a psych consult" when we mean to say that we don't agree/understand someone's decision.
The mental health industrial complex has been used as a weapon against GLBT and gender-noncomforming people for years. The stigma of "being crazy" also keeps people who need mental health care from getting it.

Thanks! Now back to lively debate!

Just checking, are you moderating?

[Corkey]

I'm wondering if folks are gate keeping. Personally I will never make the transition, the physical for me does not make the person (gender) I am. I am Transgender, not Transexual. I do think it was expedient for Jacki to further their relationship. That isn't a judgement on if Jacki is TG or not. Carpe Diem may be at play here. Love is all that matters and it is time we stop making people jump through hoops just so they can marry the person they love. Then everyone would be able just to be themselves without society getting say in their lives.

.10.

[dykeumentary]

Just checking, are you moderating?

I'm speaking as a person who had an involuntary inpatient hospitalization to treat what the doctors saw as gender issues, I'm speaking as a niece of a man who was forced to undergo shock therapy treatments to "cure" his homosexuality, I'm speaking as a friend of a 25 year-old lesbian who killed herself when she need needed help, but was too embarassed to get it.

Maybe I should have just saiid "holy shit- that's offensive!" but I tried to be nice.
Is the better response to flag a post? I don't know.

.

[Words]

Personally, my feeling is that this perfectly describes the transgender community or movement.

I think you made your views on the transgendered community perfectly clear when you first joined. I find it sad that they haven't changed, sadder still that, in spite of having been around for some time now, you still can't see - don't care? - just how offensive the way in which you express those views actually is.

[aishah]

i can see all sides of this - i think the arguments for why this may be deeper than it initially appears are pretty compelling.

that said, i know of transfolks who've faced charges of fraud in certain areas of the country for legitimately having gender identity disorder, transitioning, and then marrying someone under the law, without any discussion of doing it for the "loophole," just straight up fraud even though their gender was changed on their identity documents.

as much drama has been caused for people who definitely identify as trans and who medically transition and then choose to get married, it makes me wonder if this couple aren't opening themselves up even moreso to potential charges of fraud? the state has no problem getting into folks' marriages where this is concerned. people get charged with marriage fraud for this, for marrying for immigration reasons, etc. i'm afraid i find the legal implications of this more disturbing than the relational ones.

i also agree with words and dykeumentary who've pointed out that regardless of whether one agrees with the actions, what's really at fault here is a state and a social system that defines marriage in such a fucked up, narrow way as to even make this situation possible.

(also thanks dykeumentary for putting words to the ableism of casual comments about people's mental health states. it upset me too.)

[Kelt]

I'm reminded here of how in defending the sanctity of marriage as a union between a man and woman, the straights would make such outrageous statements as next folks will be wanting to marry their dogs/goats/whatever and we'd all be up in arms about it. This is ONE couple. Regardless of their motives, regardless of how far along the butch/transgender/whatever spectrum Jackie was at the time of the surgery, regardless of whether or not she/he now considers herself/himself a woman or a man, regardless of anything, who the hell are we to say they their marriage is a sham and, better still, that they're mentally unstable because of x, y, or z? Do we really want to be the new oppressors? I know I don't.

I am by no means wanting to trivialize the journey of anyone who is transgendered. I know what that journey looks like. I do think, however, that we need to think of the kind of precedent that we're setting here in not displaying acceptance of what, for all we know, is a healthy, loving, relationship.

Words

For the most part I agree with your post and a lot of what several others have expressed, I posted in another thread earlier and am still thinking about and learning from differing opinions. I bolded a bit above because I would love to agree but can't.

Yes, this is one couple and it's nobodies business but theirs. BUT this one couple is on Oprah. I've been away from popular culture for a long time but a decade or so ago Oprah held enormous clout in forming popular opinion. Obscure authors becoming bestsellers overnight, creating product sensations, and lots of water cooler conversations. This is why I think it has the precedent setting power of a thousand couples and that is the part I think could be detrimental to the trans community.

Maybe her cultural persuasion powers have diminished, but unless they have, it is the amount of publicity with so little content I find disturbing.

[imperfect_cupcake]

I'm wondering if folks are gate keeping. Personally I will never make the transition, the physical for me does not make the person (gender) I am. I am Transgender, not Transexual.



Thanks. I was reading this thinking... Hang on... Everyone is talking about Transexual transition, not being transgendered.... Transgender... You can be female and just not a woman. And I knew plenty of trans*gender* in the UK who still ID'd as dyke as a secondary ID.

It actually makes my left eye twitch when people conflate the two as being the same.

[BrutalDaddy]

Personally, my feeling is that this perfectly describes the transgender community or movement.



I know Linus already asked but this post really has me confused so could you please clarify on this statement? I'd greatly appreciate it.


Thanks,
Brute.

[imperfect_cupcake]

For the most part I agree with your post and a lot of what several others have expressed, I posted in another thread earlier and am still thinking about and learning from differing opinions. I bolded a bit above because I would love to agree but can't.

Yes, this is one couple and it's nobodies business but theirs. BUT this one couple is on Oprah. I've been away from popular culture for a long time but a decade or so ago Oprah held enormous clout in forming popular opinion. Obscure authors becoming bestsellers overnight, creating product sensations, and lots of water cooler conversations. This is why I think it has the precedent setting power of a thousand couples and that is the part I think could be detrimental to the trans community.

Maybe her cultural persuasion powers have diminished, but unless they have, it is the amount of publicity with so little content I find disturbing.


It's a good point. Then I blame Oprah and the media for purposefully manipulating a gap in mainstream understanding of gender, sex and sexual desire. They are all different things and frankly this is the media having a Funtime shit stirring again.

I'm not falling for it.

[Kobi]

aishah raises an important point. The issues are deeper and more complex.

But it behooves us to look at the larger picture as well.

I checked various news sources on this story. The majority did not affix a label to this couple. They were simply referred to as a couple....not a lesbian couple, not a same sex couple, just a couple.

This is huge.

We have been trained to understand the word "loophole" as meaning something bad, something nefarious, something exploitative.

Using something that exists in a way different from what was originally intended is not a bad thing.

Remember, it was a "loophole" in the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts that spurred gay marriage to a reality in this country.

Some might even say it was a "loophole" for people with the breast cancer gene to have their top surgery covered by insurance under the guise of preventative health.

Looking at something with a fresh set of eyes has led to many positive changes.

It also is imperative for us to remember that even tho we use an umbrella to describe ourselves, the rain doesnt effect us all equally.

Like it or not, the reality is, in a predominately hetero appearing society, regardless of how we get there, male-female couplings lead to instantaneous rights and privileges.

Same sex couples have made inroads but we do not have the same rights and privileges across the board. We still face an uphill battle for equity on local, state, and federal levels.

Equity will come when marriage is just marriage. As long as a distinction is made for same sex or gay marriage, there will be inequality. On the most basic of levels, do bakeries refuse to make wedding cakes for couples they perceive to be hetero?

Because of our differences we might have the need to pull this apart, and to analyze it based on our own political leanings and interests. Perfectly understandable cuz it does mean something different to different groups overall.

Yet, I havent seen anything in these stories about this couple that says they were disingenuous to their authentic selves. That says a lot to me.

[dykeumentary]

Thanks. I was reading this thinking... Hang on... Everyone is talking about Transexual transition, not being transgendered.... Transgender... You can female and just not a woman. And I knew plenty of trans*gender* in the UK who still. IDd as a dyke as a secondary ID.

It actually makes my left eye twitch when people conflate the two as being the same.

Did you come across how the person on Oprah identifies themselves? We should use the term they use.
If we are talking about interrupting the oppression of gender non-conforming people, does it help to separate support for transgender people from transsexual people?

[imperfect_cupcake]

That's not what I am referring to, that is a strawman argument in regards to my post.

[dykeumentary]

What are you referring to? I'd love to know what you're thinking!
If it's the Oprah show producers who don't know the difference, I'm not surprised.

[imperfect_cupcake]

That it's irritating when people in general and the media confuse transgender with Transexual and confuse that again with sexual desire. It makes life more difficult for people when people think sex and gender are the same.

[BrutalDaddy]

I don't know if this couple chose to go this route strictly based off "loophole" or if there were past thoughts/desires to transition and so this "loophole" provided the perfect opportunity to do so. I don't know if this couple intentionally realized the back lash that could/would stem from their decision to use the "loophole" to their advantage. I don't even know exactly how I feel about this yet.

What I do know is this. My first thought had to do how the same "scenario" has been played out for the argument against gay marriage. By this I'm speaking of the argument that gay people should not be allowed to legally marry because god had ordained marriage between a bio male and bio female so that they may procreate. This argument/scenario has been played out in front of judges all over this nation. First time I ever heard it all I could think about were all the heterosexual couples out there who, for whatever reason, could not have children.

I guess where I'm going with this is, whether intentional or unintentional, the couples' actions could/can undermine the struggles of others (transgenders and transsexuals) within that same umbrella. Just as the hard core religious organizations actions to ban gay marriage could/can undermine the struggles of those within their umbrella (heterosexual couples unable to give birth "the way god intended").

Amazing to me how two "groups", so vastly different in beliefs, could possibly parallel each other in their mission(s), not realizing (or maybe they do but don't care), how much it could affect those around them. Granted, the couple isn't a "group" but merely two people looking for a way to be considered legally married in the eyes of the law but who's to say others won't follow suit? If it worked for them, it could work for others.

It can be viewed as follows....if masculine person of that couple transitioned only to be able to legally get married yet has no desire to be a man then that can undermine the serious struggle, grief, confusion, pain that a person who transitions goes through and also the way society views transgender/transsexual. Basically that transgender/transsexual really isn't that serious of an issue so dismiss it. Same for the organized religion argument that undermines heterosexual couples who can not procreate because their argument essentially says they can't marry either or shouldn't be married.

Anyway, this ramble may have gotten off topic but the thought kept bugging me and I knew if I didn't get it out of my head, it'd stay there. So figured I'd make y'all suffer with my musings. :readfineprint:



That's All,
Brute.

[dykeumentary]

That it's irritating when people in general and the media confuse transgender with Transexual and confuse that again with sexual desire. It makes life more difficult for people when people think sex and gender are the same.

I like your brain.
Dammit though- I was kinda hoping we'd fight, so then we could make up...

[BullDog]

People have fought long and hard for legal recognition of same sex marriage. People have fought long and hard for legal sex changes. Neither group (with overlaps of course) are the ones holding institutional power.

The "loophole" to me is "heterosexual" marriage. In many places you still must have one person with male legal status and one person with female legal status to enjoy the full benefits of marriage. This could include couples where one or both of them is transsexed but queer identified. So there are times when some queers could get married under this "loophole" where a lesbian couple could not. I don't see those who do marry trying to exploit same sex couples.

I watched the video again. They look quite happy. Christine refers to Jacki as she. So yeah looks to me like Jacki did it to marry the woman she loves. I wonder what life is like for Jacki because to me s/he doesn't seem like s/he would pass for male most of the time despite her male legal status and lack of breasts. I don't see her as somehow taking advantage of a loophole and now living on easy street. Far from it.

If I had a partner who really needed health insurance or needed to emigrate or there was some real need for the woman I loved, and the only way to achieve it was to get my sex legally changed to male, I would do it. To me that's having to fight the system where the deck is stacked against you, not trying to take advantage of another disenfranchised group.

Their situation didn't seem that dire as far as legal issues in California, so yes it is puzzling. They seemed to just be in love and really want to get married, so that's why they did it.

If you put a lot of conditions on who can transition or have a legal sex change, isn't that going to hurt transsexed/transgender people? Jacki could very well end up with some unintended issues that s/he is not prepared for. I don't see the road being unproblematic for anyone who legally changes their sex- no matter what their reason is. Shouldn't it be the person's right to make the choice to transition/change their legal status rather than try to gate keep who can legally change their sex and for what reason? Some people may not make good decisions with this or based on what you agree with, very true. Many people get married for poor reason as well.

[SirenManda]

Personally, my feeling is that this perfectly describes the transgender community or movement.

Where I agree with many points listed, I can't understand how one persons actions speak for a entire community. People have their own thoughts and opinions, two people can walk the same path but have different experiences.


The problem is this couple was on Oprah, therefor has some pop culture impressions that can be long lasting on those who blindly listen/watch tv shows without question (remember when Oprah went off about beef and got sued?) which happens more than we'd like to think. Does Chaz Bono speak for every transgender individual? Of coarse not. But many will view one famous persons journey as a format for many others. Being transgender isn't a choice, I don't know anyone who ever felt like transitioning wasn't saving their life.

[DapperButch]

Where I agree with many points listed, I can't understand how one persons actions speak for a entire community. People have their own thoughts and opinions, two people can walk the same path but have different experiences.


The problem is this couple was on Oprah, therefor has some pop culture impressions that can be long lasting on those who blindly listen/watch tv shows without question (remember when Oprah went off about beef and got sued?) which happens more than we'd like to think. Does Chaz Bono speak for every transgender individual? Of coarse not. But many will view one famous persons journey as a format for many others. Being transgender isn't a choice, I don't know anyone who ever felt like transitioning wasn't saving their life.

I don't think we should assume that people who transition are "at the end of their rope", so to speak. That can be true in some cases, but not all.

I am considering taking hormones to masculinize. It isn't a matter of life and death for me.

[GraffitiBoi]

Personally, my feeling is that this perfectly describes the transgender community or movement.

I'm not sure if you are referring to the Oprah segment or to this discussion in general. I do know, as a transgender person, that the story on Oprah does not define me, my trans friends, our community, or our trans movement in which we fight endlessly for equal rights and acceptance.

*****

I do believe that the Oprah show portrayed that couple's situation in an over-simplified manner and probably left a lot of material on the cutting room floor. Regardless of how or why this couple came to their decision, I'm sure it was not done lightly or without a lot of thought and discussion on the pros and cons. No matter the reason for transition, it is a long process that cannot be decided in one fleeting moment, no matter who you are.

Do I think the Oprah story and that couple's situation casts a favorable light on transition and trans* people? No. But that is due to my own personal opinions and beliefs. No matter my thoughts and feelings, that was their issue and their decision to make, and it is none of my business to judge or care why. They did what they thought they needed to do. They aren't hurting me or interfering in my life.

[Gemme]

Just a friendly reminder, because I know that we all want to be good people here-

Please lets not use expressions like "having a screw loose" or "ordering a psych consult" when we mean to say that we don't agree/understand someone's decision.
The mental health industrial complex has been used as a weapon against GLBT and gender-noncomforming people for years. The stigma of "being crazy" also keeps people who need mental health care from getting it.

Thanks! Now back to lively debate!

I'm speaking as a person who had an involuntary inpatient hospitalization to treat what the doctors saw as gender issues, I'm speaking as a niece of a man who was forced to undergo shock therapy treatments to "cure" his homosexuality, I'm speaking as a friend of a 25 year-old lesbian who killed herself when she need needed help, but was too embarassed to get it.

Maybe I should have just saiid "holy shit- that's offensive!" but I tried to be nice.
Is the better response to flag a post? I don't know.

.


(also thanks dykeumentary for putting words to the ableism of casual comments about people's mental health states. it upset me too.)

I apologize if my words genuinely offended anyone.

However.....

I say this as someone who's mother suffered from paranoid schizophrenia for decades and did things like drag me out of grade school to hitchhike halfway across the country to go meet the president, which put us both in traumatic and dangerous situations and I wound up being held back due to the amount of time I was kept out of school. I've personally dealt with seasonal depression as well.

I think it's safe to say that most people have been touched by mental health issues in one form or another and some of us, like Anya and Dapper, actually work in the profession.

That said, this offended me.

Just a friendly reminder, because I know that we all want to be good people here-

You have no idea what I want and to insinuate that I'm a bad person because I said 'has a screw loose' feels like a shaming attempt.

Sorry.

I have no shame.

Fail.

I stand by my previous post. I certainly admit I could have used different verbiage, though.

[aishah]

forgive me if i misunderstood what anyone meant by those comments. i certainly don't think anyone is a bad person and i don't want to shame anyone into talking a certain way. just was expressing my own gratitude at the questioning of this very common reaction to attribute things we don't like/agree with to mental illness. i personally find this language to be ableist and upsetting. there are other ways of expressing disbelief, frustration, shock, lack of ability to comprehend why someone would do this, etc. than to attribute it to mental illness. it does a disservice to people with actual mental health issues and it does a disservice to the people you're talking about when we frankly don't know whether or not they have mental health issues.

edited/tl;dr -- people see things they think are bad or wrong. when people label those things as "crazy," it bothers me similarly to how it bothers me when people label bad or wrong or ridiculous or stupid or whatever things as "gay" or anything else. because i'm crazy and i resent the association of mental health with bad/wrong/ridiculous, as it perpetuates stigma. it also just doesn't make sense to me, as in it doesn't seem to be a relevant descriptor of the situation.

[Girl_On_Fire]

I'm not sure if you are referring to the Oprah segment or to this discussion in general. I do know, as a transgender person, that the story on Oprah does not define me, my trans friends, our community, or our trans movement in which we fight endlessly for equal rights and acceptance.

*****

I do believe that the Oprah show portrayed that couple's situation in an over-simplified manner and probably left a lot of material on the cutting room floor. Regardless of how or why this couple came to their decision, I'm sure it was not done lightly or without a lot of thought and discussion on the pros and cons. No matter the reason for transition, it is a long process that cannot be decided in one fleeting moment, no matter who you are.

Do I think the Oprah story and that couple's situation casts a favorable light on transition and trans* people? No. But that is due to my own personal opinions and beliefs. No matter my thoughts and feelings, that was their issue and their decision to make, and it is none of my business to judge or care why. They did what they thought they needed to do. They aren't hurting me or interfering in my life.

I think that's half the problem with media in general. The original story and all its nuances gets condensed into a 30-second to 3-minute sound byte that wraps up the entire story (according to broadcasting company) and leaves a lot of people shaking their heads in confusion, or worse, getting the wrong idea and grabbing their pitchforks.

I didn't mean to grab mine but it wasn't the couple I was going after. For me, it was the way their story was represented. It was the wording and seeming-suggestion that it's just so easy to transition and everybody who identifies as queer should do it if they want to legally marry.

That might not have been their intention at all. Nonetheless, it caused a visceral reaction.

[imperfect_cupcake]

That's the thing. The media. If anyone has ever been covered by the media they chop it up and re-gurge for easy digestion. I have had friends who have had their stories covered by The Medja and they completely misrepresented them. Utterly. Sex worker mates trying to be public with pro-sexworker stories get completely mangled. A friend of mine decided to help pay for couples therapy with her husband by volunteering herself to be covered in a story and the media blitz around certain type of couples therapy pretty much broke them up for four months because of the stress of mis representation. You can be interviewed in a really positive way and then have 85% on the editing room floor and the finished product makes you look like a complete cheese todger.

I wouldn't trust an Oprah show for it's sound journalism! That's bonkers.

It's the media circus and depiction I think is the wank heads in this story.

I just googled "marriage transgender loophole" in google. It seems the media likes to call it this from 2010-2014, just on the first page of searching.

[candy_coated_bitch]

Heh. I was thinking since last night that I wanted to come in here and pretty much say what hb did.

I've read all the posts in the thread and I've been thinking about this a bit, and realized how odd it was starting to seem to me that people were feeling so strongly, and had such strong opinions based on very little information whatsoever. Granted, I did not do an exhaustive search of the internet--but a cursory search gleaned very little information about Jacki and Christine. Yes, the media.

Oprah is not a reliable source. Two or three paragraphs online is not a reliable source. Three minutes of a snipped video online is not a reliable source. Even one comment can be taken out of context and spun out in an article or edited interview. You know how teachers tell you not to use Wikipedia as a source? Well, don't treat three minutes of video from Oprah and a couple paragraphs from Huff Post's "Gay Voices" as any sort of ACTUAL information.

What do we really know about this couple? Christine went on Oprah to talk about her coming out experience and discovering her husband and was also gay. And that the Oprah show did a follow up with Christine and they discovered she was in a relationship with someone named Jacki, who got some sort of top surgery (it keeps being called a double mastectomy) so they could get married.

That's all we know. We don't know anything about Jacki's background or her feelings about gender, or if there were deeper motivations behind this than getting married--though that can feel pretty fucking deep to some people. Maybe there were, maybe there weren't.

Can you imagine if Oprah came knocking on your door again and discovered that you were a lesbian married to someone who was legally male, but kinda still identified as female anyways? Maybe they are just trying to control as much of their own story as they can.

WHO THE HELL KNOWS?

That's my point. The discussion is interesting and I like hearing differing points of view--BUT, I can't see getting that mad about it. I don't see how one person's choice invalidates trans* experience. What does that even mean? Phrases like "trans* experience"? That covers a lot of territory. And I'd also like to think that two people doing something, even if it turned about to be disingenuous, don't have enough real power to affect the trans* movement at all. Like, seriously if two queers that went on Oprah and had a couple tiny articles written about them can set us back--well then trans* activists and their allies aren't doing a very good job!

This slightly reminds me of the time that FTM got pregnant (who also went on Oprah, oddly enough, though I don't remember his name) and the community was in fucking UPROAR about it. This isn't quite the same uproar--but there was no trans* apocalypse after that. The sky didn't fall. As far as I can tell we've still come a long way in the ten or more years since that happened. His fifteen minutes of fame are over and those of us who care about trans* issues are still fighting the good fight.

It mystifies me sometimes how individual people's PERSONAL choices can come to represent so much just because we may disagree with them, or find them distasteful, or their choices scare us. Nobody I know outside of this bfp circle even KNOWS who these people are. I doubt they will have much actual influence on anything.

[BullDog]

Christine actually responds quite a bit in the comments in the Huffington Post article. It gave me a little more insight into their story, but yes we still know very little.


James McInnis:
Kimberly Player "Great" seems a little strong; I'm completely neutral about them getting married, which means I don't care.

Christine: James McInnis Thanks! We care about having equal rights.



Convience? You mean not being dragged out of women's restrooms anymore or stared rudely at public pools and laughed at because she looked like a man in a bikini. Do you want to be the type of person that is judgmental and self righteous?


I'm sorry you feel that way Maureen. Jacki actually opted to have reconstruction of her chest and it was really well done. I'm terribly sorry if we offend you. That was never our intention.


Thank you. You're very kind. xxxooo It wasn't easy talking about my personal life on TV...Harpo has been calling every 6-9 months checking up on me for 8 years. I know not everyone is going to be kind like you when I go into these things but I want you to know I really appreciate it Mignonne. xxoo

[candy_coated_bitch]

I usually never even THINK to read the comments on articles because they are usually a hot mess LOL. Though ironically in this case I would probably trust the words straight out of her mouth more than the article itself. Thanks!

[dykeumentary]

You have no idea what I want and to insinuate that I'm a bad person because I said 'has a screw loose' feels like a shaming attempt.

Sorry.

I have no shame.

Fail.


GEMME by quoting what I wrote so completely, your post feels like you are being negative to me specifically. I wasn't being specifically negative to you.

I posted what I did because I know that many people read what's here. I posted what I did because it was an opportunity to talk about how people who don't even intend to be hurtful get pulled into mental health oppression.

It was relevant to this thread not only because we have a responsibility to other BFP posters to interrupt hurtful language, but also because Oprah probably didn't mean to be hurtful to anybody, yet (as you pointed out) many trans people are/were/could be harmed by this segment on her show. This is a thread about how out actions impact others.

So since you posted to me personally, here is my personal response back to you:

You wrote about your experience with your mom and I feel genuine compassion for you, that must have been so difficult.
Sadly though, our experiences of being hurt by someone with mental health issues does not give you or anyone permission to say things like "there's a screw loose" -- that's a bad way to say you don't agree. If you are talking about somieone's mental condition, and if you ARE a psychiatrist, you wouldn't have permission to talk about their condition here anyway.
An experience of being hurt by someone with a broken leg doesn't give you permission to say "that's so lame." An experience of being hurt by someone with cognitive delays doesn't give you permission to say "that's so retarded." An experience of being treated badly by a poor person doesn't give you permission to say "That's ghetto" The list goes on.

It's clear from your total number of posts that you care about this site. I don't know you, nor do I find sport in shaming anyone.
You and I both feel the responsibility to talk about everyday oppression, and our part in interrupting it -That's why we both post in threads like this.

[imperfect_cupcake]

Wait. There was a shit storm over an ftm giving birth? Seriously? >:( so bloody what! Not every ftm is a hetero median representative of what male and man is. Most.of the ftms I know transition into their own understanding of their gender and sex. That means many of them like to be fisted, have no issue with penetration in any hole and one of my ftm mates actually went off T to give birth because his wife couldn't. I didn't blink, if his body can do it and he's agreeable, its part of his gender and sex expression. Why does what one person does have to be representative of an entire group if they are in a minority? Isn't that a bit fucked up? Why do we ask people to be spokes people for gender, sex and sexual orientation for everyone? We aren't borg . One femme will never be able to represent everyone with a feminine gender expression. Why do we expect others to do it?

Just ugh.

[Gemme]

CCB, the guy's name is Thomas Beattie. He bore 3 beautiful babies before his final reassignment surgery.

GEMME by quoting what I wrote so completely, your post feels like you are being negative to me specifically. I wasn't being specifically negative to you.

There were only TWO people that made comments that fit what you rallied against. Anya and myself, so yeah. It was personal.

I posted what I did because I know that many people read what's here. I posted what I did because it was an opportunity to talk about how people who don't even intend to be hurtful get pulled into mental health oppression.

It was relevant to this thread not only because we have a responsibility to other BFP posters to interrupt hurtful language, but also because Oprah probably didn't mean to be hurtful to anybody, yet (as you pointed out) many trans people are/were/could be harmed by this segment on her show. This is a thread about how out actions impact others.

So since you posted to me personally, here is my personal response back to you:

You wrote about your experience with your mom and I feel genuine compassion for you, that must have been so difficult.
Sadly though, our experiences of being hurt by someone with mental health issues does not give you or anyone permission to say things like "there's a screw loose" -- that's a bad way to say you don't agree. If you are talking about somieone's mental condition, and if you ARE a psychiatrist, you wouldn't have permission to talk about their condition here anyway.

First, free speech allows me the 'permission' to say whatever I'd like. Granted, just because someone can SAY something doesn't mean they SHOULD. Westboro, anyone?

I brought up my personal experience because your post read like 'this has been my experience and so that makes it perfectly fine for me to pass judgment on what you said'. You are not an island unto itself. Like I said, mental health affects all of us and most of us have had experience, either directly or indirectly, so we all have the same right to speak out about it, one way or another.

I wasn't saying "I don't agree". I was saying that, given the information I had at that time, I felt that maybe one or both of them could benefit from some professional help because the line drawn between 'problem' and 'solution' didn't feel logical to me. It felt belittling to those who actually have to struggle and work towards a transition and not just 'opt' to do it. As others have since said, it could very well be the propaganda and the media's approach to it. Or not. It felt like they were saying that Jacki's choice was the easiest to make.

Actually, most people could benefit from professional help in the mental health field. Life is stressful.

So you are a lawyer? It's my understanding that medical professionals can speak publicly and clearly about anything that's a public case. The line is drawn when it's one of their own patients. That's doctor-patient confidentiality and would certainly prohibit a doctor from discussing their personal patient's case and history.

An experience of being hurt by someone with a broken leg doesn't give you permission to say "that's so lame." An experience of being hurt by someone with cognitive delays doesn't give you permission to say "that's so retarded." An experience of being treated badly by a poor person doesn't give you permission to say "That's ghetto" The list goes on.

It's clear from your total number of posts that you care about this site. I don't know you, nor do I find sport in shaming anyone.
You and I both feel the responsibility to talk about everyday oppression, and our part in interrupting it -That's why we both post in threads like this.

Some of the correlations you drew confuse me. For one, one doesn't have to be poor to be ghetto and vise versa. And I just don't get the lame comment. I can't see where 'that's so lame' would be offensive, hurt leg or not. To be clear, I understand what lame means. I just don't see the offense in it.

The number of one's posts means nothing. You have less than 400 but you have strong opinions and are vocal about what you feel strongly for. I don't judge people on how often they do or do not post.

I'm really balking at you speaking for me and others, which you have done multiple times now. You don't know what I feel responsibility for or why I post in threads. At all. It feels very condescending for you to speak as though you do and I would rather it not continue.

I appreciate good debate but I feel our discussion is pulling the train off the rails, so if you'd like to address this with me privately, feel free. I welcome it.

[*Anya*]

Then, they decided to get married but couldn't legally so Jacki changed her sex?

Not because Jacki identified as transgendered but just to be able to marry Christine?

I wonder about both of their mental statuses.

I am ordering up full psych consults times two.

Yes, it trivializes coming out for transfolk and trivializes coming out for lesbians.

It is insulting for all of us and for all of our struggles that any of us could so easily turn on and off who we are with a switch.

Yep, I was the other one that made what I saw as a light-hearted, if rather flip, comment about their possibly needing an evaluation if Jacki changed her sex solely for the purpose of marrying Christine.

Honestly, it is difficult to be genuine when one has to constantly re-evaluate every comment and observation in a forum so as to not offend someone, somewhere.

Do I not have empathy and compassion for the mentally ill and chemically dependent? Have I not shown that in the 3-years that I have posted here?

Do I sometimes make a comment that I think is humorous that others do not find funny at all? Clearly.

I am sorry if my comment, specifically about Christine and Jacki's behavior came off as heartless and stirred up pain for past or present history.

My feelings get hurt easily. I don't challenge every comment written that might bother me. I feel that my own past experiences are mine alone and if someone makes a comment that offends-they are not directing it at me personally.

Unless they are-in that case, I can either chose to let it go or address it. Since Gemme stood up and faced the comments directed at the two of us; I needed to do so, too.

I am sorry I may have caused hurt but still believe that as the story is written (which may not be true); I still question their judgement.

Perhaps questioning their judgement would have been less offensive than questioning their mental status.

I agree with that.

[Okiebug61]

Why does or how does one's own journey and the shoes they walk in be an overall deciding factor of another's journey?

Should we even be questioning their personal decisions? If so, does this not open the door for all to be scrutinized?

Last when does the things we do for love take on a true meaning?

[*Anya*]

Isn't the point of a forum to have "lively debate"?

Can we not question? How do we learn if we do not question?

We call each other on everything if we think we have crossed a line or even if we simply disagree.

What would be the point of forums if everyone agreed with everything and everyone?

[Gemme]

Okiebug, they opened the door to scrutiny when Christine went on Oprah years ago and when they allowed Harpo to do a story on them as a couple.

But yes, I do believe that if this were a couple who did not seek attention and thusly put it 'out there', we would have no right to comment.

I don't agree with the choices made, but it's not my life to live. If they feel they made the best choices for themselves, great. They are the ones who have to deal with the fallout from those choices.

I still feel as if the information presented minimizes the enormity of the process of transition and I still don't believe that authenticity was prevalent in the decisions made. That is probably the kindest, gentlest way I can say it.

[imperfect_cupcake]

I argue with myself, frequently.

Nothin wrong with a bit of argy-bargy. Keeps things spicy and sexy.

[tantalizingfemme]

To me, the fact that Jacki is still referred to as her/she speaks on whether she is really trans. I personally don't see her as really wanting to be a man so that she can live as a man... she just wanted to be able to check that box for a marriage license. That to me is where there is a "slap in the face" to those who really are living a trans experience.

Sounds almost like an entitled child. I want what I want when I want it so rather than wait and fight for marriage in California, I'm just going to join the straight world and take the easy way out.

[imperfect_cupcake]

I know that's it's super easy to get both breasts removed. I like to do it every five years.

Its the easy way out of any pinch.

Also, christine stated that their situation is more complicated than pronoun use. I know a few of "she's" who consider themselves their own gender. They just aren't all that fussed with pronouns. You just can't know how she feels about her own gender. Some peoples gender fluxes in a day to day fashion. So what?

[tantalizingfemme]

Some peoples gender fluxes in a day to day fashion. So what?

But do they get all of the straight priveleges that are now legally and permanently afforded to this couple?

I know that's it's super easy to get both breasts removed. I like to do it every five years.

Well it was a whole lot faster then waiting for CA to jump on the bandwagon.

[BullDog]

As a lesbian, should I be upset that an FTM who achieves male status can get "straight privilege" via marriage and I can't?

Same sex couples are supposed to "fight the good fight" or get married in another state or country that they don't even live in- which basically is meaningless from a legal standpoint.

I don't necessarily think it was a wise move, but these comments about "taking the easy way out" do tick me off.

[tantalizingfemme]

I don't necessarily think it was a wise move, but these comments about "taking the easy way out" do tick me off.

Can I ask why it bothers you? I'm just curious.

[BullDog]

I don't think it's damn easy for anyone of us- lesbian, trans or anyone else.

Christine & Jacki could easily be members of the Planet and fit right in. As far as I know they are not, but they have the same struggles all of us here do- with gender, navigating the legal system, etc. I don't see them on easy street. Far from it.

[tantalizingfemme]

I don't think it's damn easy for anyone of us- lesbian, trans or anyone else.

Christine & Jacki could easily be members of the Planet and fit right in. As far as I know they are not, but they have the same struggles all of us here do- with gender, navigating the legal system, etc. I don't see them on easy street. Far from it.

I hear what you are saying. I guess I see the path they have ahead of themselves as a little more yellow brick roadish than many who are not in a straight marriage and living in a state that doesn't allow gay marriage.

Thanks for your response.

[BullDog]

Thank you for your response as well. Yes, I don't see the situation in California being dire, but on the other hand the legal state of marriage for same sex couples is still tenuous at best in most places. But yes it makes it puzzling for me, but I don't see it as an easy way out.

What they want is equal rights. It's what we all want.

I think marriage can be very tenuous for transsexed people as well. I have heard more than one person mention their marriages are often investigated for fraud.

I don't see this as a "transgender/transsexual loophole." It is a "heterosexual" loophole where if you have one legal male and one legal female you can have a legal marriage. Obviously, if you had two transsexed individuals of the same legal sex (2 females or 2 males) this "loophole" wouldn't apply either.

As a lesbian, I would be happy if achieving lesbian status for someone who wasn't lesbian so they could get married or achieve something for their partners or families was helpful. Unfortunately, there is no legal, financial or any other institutional advantage to doing so. There also isn't for being transsexed/transgender. It is lining up with a so-called heterosexual coupling that does the trick. The defenders of "traditional" marriage are not happy with an FTM or MTF getting married to someone of the opposite sex-they will see that as a "loophole" or worse.

If anything, I see this could be viewed just as much as undermining of same sex marriage, but that isn't how it's being viewed, which I do find fascinating.

[Kelt]

<snip>
Can you imagine if Oprah came knocking on your door again and discovered that you were a lesbian married to someone who was legally male, but kinda still identified as female anyways? Maybe they are just trying to control as much of their own story as they can.

I think they had every reason to anticipate the interview request (see below) and that if controlling their story was important they could have declined the opportunity. They already had experience with the media.

<snip>
Thank you. You're very kind. xxxooo It wasn't easy talking about my personal life on TV...Harpo has been calling every 6-9 months checking up on me for 8 years. I know not everyone is going to be kind like you when I go into these things but I want you to know I really appreciate it Mignonne. xxoo

*bold added by me*
I can't imagine being under that kind of scrutiny and it sounds like they knew it would kick up some things that might be negative. Maybe this will be one of those timed release stories that grows with time depending on the interest it generates and we're just seeing the first layer. Who knows? Not me.

[imperfect_cupcake]

I think the "easiest" way out would have been to move to a state that allows marriage. That they didn't, instead she went through a painful, expensive and full of recovery surgery (I know what a masactomy involves and it's gruelling) tells me there is more to gender flux of Jacki than we can guess.

I think moving to a new state would have been FAR easier. I've had heavy surgery amd moved continents. I'd take moving over heavy surgery any day.

[Girl_On_Fire]

Heh. I was thinking since last night that I wanted to come in here and pretty much say what hb did.

I've read all the posts in the thread and I've been thinking about this a bit, and realized how odd it was starting to seem to me that people were feeling so strongly, and had such strong opinions based on very little information whatsoever. Granted, I did not do an exhaustive search of the internet--but a cursory search gleaned very little information about Jacki and Christine. Yes, the media.

Oprah is not a reliable source. Two or three paragraphs online is not a reliable source. Three minutes of a snipped video online is not a reliable source. Even one comment can be taken out of context and spun out in an article or edited interview. You know how teachers tell you not to use Wikipedia as a source? Well, don't treat three minutes of video from Oprah and a couple paragraphs from Huff Post's "Gay Voices" as any sort of ACTUAL information.

What do we really know about this couple? Christine went on Oprah to talk about her coming out experience and discovering her husband and was also gay. And that the Oprah show did a follow up with Christine and they discovered she was in a relationship with someone named Jacki, who got some sort of top surgery (it keeps being called a double mastectomy) so they could get married.

That's all we know. We don't know anything about Jacki's background or her feelings about gender, or if there were deeper motivations behind this than getting married--though that can feel pretty fucking deep to some people. Maybe there were, maybe there weren't.

Can you imagine if Oprah came knocking on your door again and discovered that you were a lesbian married to someone who was legally male, but kinda still identified as female anyways? Maybe they are just trying to control as much of their own story as they can.

WHO THE HELL KNOWS?

That's my point. The discussion is interesting and I like hearing differing points of view--BUT, I can't see getting that mad about it. I don't see how one person's choice invalidates trans* experience. What does that even mean? Phrases like "trans* experience"? That covers a lot of territory. And I'd also like to think that two people doing something, even if it turned about to be disingenuous, don't have enough real power to affect the trans* movement at all. Like, seriously if two queers that went on Oprah and had a couple tiny articles written about them can set us back--well then trans* activists and their allies aren't doing a very good job!

This slightly reminds me of the time that FTM got pregnant (who also went on Oprah, oddly enough, though I don't remember his name) and the community was in fucking UPROAR about it. This isn't quite the same uproar--but there was no trans* apocalypse after that. The sky didn't fall. As far as I can tell we've still come a long way in the ten or more years since that happened. His fifteen minutes of fame are over and those of us who care about trans* issues are still fighting the good fight.

It mystifies me sometimes how individual people's PERSONAL choices can come to represent so much just because we may disagree with them, or find them distasteful, or their choices scare us. Nobody I know outside of this bfp circle even KNOWS who these people are. I doubt they will have much actual influence on anything.

While I understand the intention of what you've posted here, I have to disagree. You, Candy, are a reasonable person. Or, at least you seem to be. Therefore, the story didn't elicit any strong feelings in you and that's makes sense. You're fine with live and let live. So am I.

That being said, there are a bunch of freaking homophobic nutters out there that will take just about anything that may make GLBT people look like a "problem" and RUN with it. Think the Duck Dynasty scandal a few months back. People were "Standing with Phil" when they didn't even know what the heck they were standing for! People were up in arms, ready to attack GLBT people because of something one person on a popular(ish) TV show said.

People who are comfortable in their own bubbles who don't actively go out and attack others but do have a problem with a certain group of people secretly love it when there's some type of fuel to add to the fire. Any excuse to finally let loose that rage they've had bottled up for years.

It's dangerous because we still live in a homophobic and ignorant society. Many people are enlightened and either don't care or are fine with GLBT people. Others are just waiting for an excuse, no matter how they appear on the outside.

It's stuff like this that sends the wrong message. Is it a huge ripple in the pond? No, not really. The Duck Dynasty thing was actually a lot worse. I've just always taken issue with misrepresentation, either intentional or unintentional because us queer folks have so few platforms and even less positive (and accurate) representation as it is.

[imperfect_cupcake]

That being said, there are a bunch of freaking homophobic nutters out there that will take just about anything that may make GLBT people look like a "problem" and RUN with it.

This is not their responsibility. People used to use that excuse on why people should not behave outrageously at pride, we should all tone it down so people accept us.

It's really not their responsibility what the homophobes do. It's the homophobes responsibility.

[Gemme]

I know that's it's super easy to get both breasts removed. I like to do it every five years.

Its the easy way out of any pinch.

Also, christine stated that their situation is more complicated than pronoun use. I know a few of "she's" who consider themselves their own gender. They just aren't all that fussed with pronouns. You just can't know how she feels about her own gender. Some peoples gender fluxes in a day to day fashion. So what?

Jacki had a an F on her state and government issued paperwork.

She went through, as you've mentioned, a tremendous surgery and the ramifications that come from that, in order to change the F to an M.

Jacki now has an M on her state and government issued paperwork.

Jacki maintains female and feminine pronouns and is her partner's wife. Not husband. Wife.

That's an awful lot to go through for a constantly wavering gender flux. So why in the Hell did she do that? When you yourself said a move would be far easier.

It feels dishonest to me, because in my experience, those who go through all of that effort to have that one letter changed actually feel like they are that gender. It's not a temporary solution to them or something that might fluctuate. It's who they ARE. Not something they did in order to get hitched.

I feel this 'loophole' kicks sand in the faces of those who've gone through the process for the most authentic reason there is; it's who. they. are.

[BullDog]

Yeah, it's a lot to go through- and Jacki went through with it no matter what her reasons were.

[DapperButch]

I think the "easiest" way out would have been to move to a state that allows marriage. That they didn't, instead she went through a painful, expensive and full of recovery surgery (I know what a masactomy involves and it's gruelling) tells me there is more to gender flux of Jacki than we can guess.
I think moving to a new state would have been FAR easier. I've had heavy surgery amd moved continents. I'd take moving over heavy surgery any day.

EXACTLY. That was the entire point of my post. The kicker is that she takes testosterone. That has nothing to do with getting her gender marker changed.

All she needed was the top surgery and a note saying from her surgeon that this qualifies her as male in the state of CA

There are many a transman who feels guilt and loss around transitioning. They feel that they can no longer be feminists if they transition. Sometimes their lesbian community shuns them because they feel betrayed. The transperson become invisible (invisible to both the straight and gay communities...both losses, but in different ways), which can be painful.

Jacki, on the other hand, is in a great position. Better than she was before transition. She doesn't lose her lesbian community (because she is still a woman. I mean, it isn't her FAULT that she had to transition...she needed to marry her wife), but she gets hetero privilege. Pretty nice deal.

My original point though, was to say that there has to be some sort of gender incongruence for Jacki or she would have just had the top surgery, changed her gender marker, and gone on with her life. That isn't what she did. She transitioned.

[Andrea]

Several people have said that they could have moved to a state that offered same-sex marriages. I may be mistaken but at that time I am fairly certain even the states that offered same-sex marriages couldn't offer the Federal benefits of spousal Social Security, etc. Isn't that what was mentioned in the interview?

[*Anya*]

According to the Huffington Post article, Jacki and Christine married in 2013 and recently celebrated their one year anniversary.

Same sex marriage became legal in California on June 28, 2013.

I do understand that many Californians did not believe it would really happen.

*"The judgment of the Ninth Circuit was vacated and the case was returned to that Court with instructions to dismiss the Prop 8 sponsors' appeal. On June 28, 2013 a stay of effect was removed from the federal district court decision and same-sex marriages were able to resume. Same-sex couples married in San Francisco later that day."

Nor did I personally think that portions of DOMA would be ruled unconstitutional on June 26, 2013.

*"December 7, 2012, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. Oral arguments were heard on March 27, 2013.[113] In a 5–4 decision on June 26, 2013, the Court ruled Section 3 of DOMA to be unconstitutional, declaring it "a deprivation of the liberty of the person protected by the Fifth Amendment."[1]:25"

*Wikipedia

[imperfect_cupcake]

I'm lost. I think because of the partners I've had, who ID as female half the time and something else other parts of the time, plus their gender shifts and changes from day to day, hour to hour... Often contemplating either T or top surgery but not thinking of changing their legal sex, nor wanting their public pronoun use to be anything but, but privately, in bed and in other situations "he"....
I'm not suprised its not a big jump to get the legal transition.

It also shows people how absurd it it to hold others back from marriage, no matter what their sex or gender. Its a good point to be making, frankly.

[Kobi]

The complexities in this situation keep unfolding. Much food for thought and many questions come to mind as the discussion unfolds.

How anything is interpreted is based a lot on how it is introduced. The name of this thread is such that it skews one's thinking of its intent into a certain area of thought.

The media does the same kind of playing with words to make or create a snippet to pique readers attention. The actual story may or may not bear any resemblance to the title, nor supply enough accurate facts to justify the title.

Much is unknown here. Thus, being human, we try to fill in the blanks based on our own perceptions and bias and needs.

Dapper has been very clear in reiterating the "actions" Jacki took and continues to take. The actions may indicate one thing. However, when you factor in the use of the pronoun she and the title of wife, it gets confusing.

We are a community which prides itself on diversity. We are BIG on diversity. Yet, in action, like in this situation, our definition of diversity indicates we have a much narrower view on what diversity is and what it should look like.

The suggestion has been made that this couple had other choices. One of those choices was to "take the easy route" and move to a state that recognizes same sex marriage. The overall goal of the actions here was to have the same rights and privileges as are automatically granted to hetero marriages.

Same sex marriage, even where legal, does not do this. We still have to fight for these rights and privileges. We still have to depend on politicians to foster equality into the laws. And, we have to hope the political tide doesnt shift and work to undo what has already been done. Think the republican war on women.

The other suggestion was this couple should have waited until the same sex marriage issue was resolved in their state. Same problem arises. The marriage laws are not applied equally thus waiting solves nothing.

Personally, I have a bias in situations like this when one group with privilege tells another without privilege, they just have to wait. It brings me back to the 1800's when the slaves were fighting for freedom and women were fighting for the right to vote. They teamed up and spoke to each other bonds of slavery as their common ground. Yet, when the right to vote was on the table for emancipated men of color, and the suffragettes begged them to fight for the inclusion of women in this bill, it was Frederick Douglass who told women "they would have to wait their turn". Their turn came 100 years later. Male privilege trumped a common cause.

That leads to my next point. I am hearing it said in different ways how this couples journey trivializes the personal/legal/medical journey of trans persons. I dont see this but I am also not a trans person and may not understand the intricacies involved.

What I do find myself wondering, is if there is an issue of trivializing the trans process or if it is more a case of trivializing the outcome. That male marker is the validation of male/man/manhood and all the rights and privileges that go along with that status.

So, is this couple trivializing the trans journey or are they challenging the definition of manhood and all the perks that come along with the marker?

Does someone who has changed their marker but not their pronoun undermine the concept of male? Does someone who has changed their marker but is still comfortable using the title of wife, undermine the concept of husband?

Is the issue perhaps that this couple, in not providing answers one way or another, is really:

1. living proof of what diversity really looks like?
2. forcing us to look at our own biases and prejudices?
3. a reminder that we do not have to reinvent the wheel for change to occur?
4. walk the talk is an action not a philosophy?

Much to ponder.

[Kelt]

EXACTLY. That was the entire point of my post. The kicker is that she takes testosterone. That has nothing to do with getting her gender marker changed.

All she needed was the top surgery and a note saying from her surgeon that this qualifies her as male in the state of CA

There are many a transman who feels guilt and loss around transitioning. They feel that they can no longer be feminists if they transition. Sometimes their lesbian community shuns them because they feel betrayed. The transperson become invisible (invisible to both the straight and gay communities...both losses, but in different ways), which can be painful.

Jacki, on the other hand, is in a great position. Better than she was before transition. She doesn't lose her lesbian community (because she is still a woman. I mean, it isn't her FAULT that she had to transition...she needed to marry her wife), but she gets hetero privilege. Pretty nice deal.

My original point though, was to say that there has to be some sort of gender incongruence for Jacki or she would have just had the top surgery, changed her gender marker, and gone on with her life. That isn't what she did. She transitioned.

Hey Dapper, I hit you up in rep, but I think this is germane to the larger conversation. *extra bold by me*

First up, I have only watched the video once and read this thread in its entirety.

I was unaware that she was on T. When I saw the video, my thought on seeing Jacki's muscularity and hearing her voice was to think "I bet she works out really hard and maybe does or did take steroids for bodybuilding". That is something I have seen before and it is less likely to lead to hair loss and beard growth.

If she is taking T, that is a game changer and I would have to agree that there is more to the gender issue for her than a financial advantage. I have to leave for a bit but will be interested to learn more about this later. I will look for the Huff article and if anyone can tell me where more content (with any credibility) can be found, I'd appreciate it.

Be back later...

[Words]

Anyone want to slam Blue and I for marrying in Canada at a time (September 2004) when we couldn't do it in Israel (where I was living), California (where Blue was living), or the UK (where I'm from)? I mean, God forbid that we should have been so selfish as to care only about what mattered to us (i.e., being married).

Honestly, I'm seeing a really slippery slope here.

Words

[Kelt]

Anyone want to slam Blue and I for marrying in Canada at a time (September 2004) when we couldn't do it in Israel (where I was living), California (where Blue was living), or the UK (where I'm from)? I mean, God forbid that we should have been so selfish as to care only about what mattered to us (i.e., being married).

Honestly, I'm seeing a really slippery slope here.

Words

I have no issue with you or anyone else who finds themselves in a ridiculously skewed situation finding a way around an obstacle to achieve goals that should be available to all. If 90% of a population gains advantage of some sort being married then the other 10% should be able to use a work around until the wrong is righted.

I found my self using a "loophole" to get access to better medical insurance this year and would do it again if I could. My issue with this situation isn't that they did it or really even how, but with the way that a big media machine is presenting it as some little slight of hand without providing more content around the topic as a whole.

No slamming here, I'm glad you found a way.

[Corkey]

I don't understand one thing. How can we sit back and make judgements upon a person we don't know. I sure have been through some judgements from this community in the past ( not seen as the gender I am). What gives us the right to pronounce upon another Queer person? Her decision is really none of our business. What she calls herself is none of our business, how she relates to her wife is none of our business. Thought provoking though it may be we are not in any position to make pronouncements on another Humans journey.

.10

[Girl_On_Fire]

I don't understand one thing. How can we sit back and make judgements upon a person we don't know. I sure have been through some judgements from this community in the past ( not seen as the gender I am). What gives us the right to pronounce upon another Queer person? Her decision is really none of our business. What she calls herself is none of our business, how she relates to her wife is none of our business. Thought provoking though it may be we are not in any position to make pronouncements on another Humans journey.

.10

I feel like I'm beating a dead horse here.

My irritation at this comes from the way the couple is representing an entire community. Not themselves or their love or their relationship.

I am not and was not judging them as people. Whether it was the show or the article or a combination of both, something rubbed me (and a lot of others) the wrong way. It just didn't sit right that the description of transgender was somehow reduced to a "loophole" to get married. I don't think it should have been minimized like that.

Was it their right? Of course. It's their life. It's just upsetting to me that this will be the take-away for so many people who grossly misunderstand GLBT culture.

If queer people are truly to be accepted, the media needs to focus less on stories that marginalize and more on the lives and the common, everyday struggles of queer couples and relationships.

It's like the pictures in the paper from pride events that depict only the 6-foot-tall screaming drag queen in a pink feather boa and completely ignore the loving hugs, hand-holding, kissing, and celebrating among couples that makes up the other 90% of the event.

I think media coverage like that is a sneaky way of marginalizing by focusing on the extreme. Eventually, this is the automatic picture an uneducated person has in their head in relation to the queer community.

It only makes them cling tighter to their prejudice beliefs.

[aishah]

Girl_on_Fire, i think some of the disagreement comes from the issue that - is it really this couple's responsibility to bear the burden of representing an entire community? i don't necessarily see that they were trying to do that. yes, people may take it like that, and certainly the mainstream media profits off of exploiting people's stories in that way, but is that actually the fault of the couple themselves?

i personally tend to lean towards the argument that that burden should be on the transphobic world we live in and the way mainstream media screws up representations of trans people, if only because trans folks whose stories are in the media do not necessarily get to control how they are represented. in this case oprah, and the prejudices of our society that turn every single media event into a monolithic representation of an entire community, are what is at fault. the couple has no control over the fact that that is how the media, and our society, respond to any representation of trans folks.

[Corkey]

[QUOTE=Girl_On_Fire;921984]I feel like I'm beating a dead horse here.

My irritation at this comes from the way the couple is representing an entire community. Not themselves or their love or their relationship. They can't because they are two people,

I am not and was not judging them as people. Whether it was the show or the article or a combination of both, something rubbed me (and a lot of others) the wrong way. It just didn't sit right that the description of transgender was somehow reduced to a "loophole" to get married. I don't think it should have been minimized like that. That is a judgement of them.
Was it their right? Of course. It's their life. It's just upsetting to me that this will be the take-away for so many people who grossly misunderstand GLBT culture. There are worse representations.

If queer people are truly to be accepted, the media needs to focus less on stories that marginalize and more on the lives and the common, everyday struggles of queer couples and relationships.
Oprah is a has been, she isn't on most television stations any longer.
It's like the pictures in the paper from pride events that depict only the 6-foot-tall screaming drag queen in a pink feather boa and completely ignore the loving hugs, hand-holding, kissing, and celebrating among couples that makes up the other 90% of the event. I'm glad that "screaming drag queen" has a voice.

I think media coverage like that is a sneaky way of marginalizing by focusing on the extreme. Eventually, this is the automatic picture an uneducated person has in their head in relation to the queer community. Ignorant people will always be ignorant.

It only makes them cling tighter to their prejudice beliefs.

The media will paint anyone with a broad brush. What I found in this thread is Queers judging another Queer.

[Gemme]

Girl_on_Fire, i think some of the disagreement comes from the issue that - is it really this couple's responsibility to bear the burden of representing an entire community? i don't necessarily see that they were trying to do that. yes, people may take it like that, and certainly the mainstream media profits off of exploiting people's stories in that way, but is that actually the fault of the couple themselves?

i personally tend to lean towards the argument that that burden should be on the transphobic world we live in and the way mainstream media screws up representations of trans people, if only because trans folks whose stories are in the media do not necessarily get to control how they are represented. in this case oprah, and the prejudices of our society that turn every single media event into a monolithic representation of an entire community, are what is at fault. the couple has no control over the fact that that is how the media, and our society, respond to any representation of trans folks.

While I agree with you that no one person or no one couple should represent a group (and I do agree that they have every right to make whatever decisions they feel they need or want to as a couple), they are the ones that agreed to sit down with Oprah recently. And Christine went on TV those years ago. So, yes. They bear some burden for the image they represent. They could have said no. But they didn't. They sought that attention out for whatever reason and there's going to be fallout from that.

Public attention comes with a lot of baggage, some of which includes being lumped together and representing our community as a whole.

[BullDog]

It is a common everyday struggle for same sex couples to try to get married and have legal protection for their relationship and partner.

[Kobi]

I feel like I'm beating a dead horse here.

My irritation at this comes from the way the couple is representing an entire community. Not themselves or their love or their relationship.

I am not and was not judging them as people. Whether it was the show or the article or a combination of both, something rubbed me (and a lot of others) the wrong way. It just didn't sit right that the description of transgender was somehow reduced to a "loophole" to get married. I don't think it should have been minimized like that.

Was it their right? Of course. It's their life. It's just upsetting to me that this will be the take-away for so many people who grossly misunderstand GLBT culture.

If queer people are truly to be accepted, the media needs to focus less on stories that marginalize and more on the lives and the common, everyday struggles of queer couples and relationships.

It's like the pictures in the paper from pride events that depict only the 6-foot-tall screaming drag queen in a pink feather boa and completely ignore the loving hugs, hand-holding, kissing, and celebrating among couples that makes up the other 90% of the event.

I think media coverage like that is a sneaky way of marginalizing by focusing on the extreme. Eventually, this is the automatic picture an uneducated person has in their head in relation to the queer community.

It only makes them cling tighter to their prejudice beliefs.


Girl,

The media has a job to do, a product to sell. The media can transform anything into a 3 ring circus. Anything out of the ordinary or which can be made to look like it is out of the ordinary catches peoples attention. They will even fill up space using opinion and conjecture when "facts" are not available.

That is the reality of the media. And it is not just the mainstream media. I have seen some stuff in the queer presses and the feminist presses that are just as exploitative and annoying.

As long as there is a profit motive, whatever sells will be used. As much as we say we dont like it, the majority of people love other peoples drama. If they didnt, sensationalism wouldnt be used.

What we need to be careful not to do is to feed into the frenzy or to start pointing the finger of blame or shaming one another. None of these is at all helpful to us as a community or to educating those who are not part of our community. All of these are detrimental to us as individuals and as a whole.

To say this couple represents an entire community is erroneous. To say this couple has to present or explain themselves in a certain way or face the consequences, is not in anyone's best interest.

We are all fighting to be and live our authentic selves, whoever and however we choose, whether in private or in public. One can not be authentic if one has to live up to some arbitrary standard of acceptableness or someone else's standard of acceptable.

To say the media is at fault or that this couple should have done thus and so is a "yeah but" kind of thing. They have the right BUT. Either they have the right or they dont. There are no buts.

And this brings us back to diversity. Either we believe in diversity, free from our own needs to see it done a certain way, or we dont.

[aishah]

While I agree with you that no one person or no one couple should represent a group (and I do agree that they have every right to make whatever decisions they feel they need or want to as a couple), they are the ones that agreed to sit down with Oprah recently. And Christine went on TV those years ago. So, yes. They bear some burden for the image they represent. They could have said no. But they didn't. They sought that attention out for whatever reason and there's going to be fallout from that.

Public attention comes with a lot of baggage, some of which includes being lumped together and representing our community as a whole.

yeah, i can definitely see both sides of this argument. i really like what kobi said above -

"To say this couple represents an entire community is erroneous. To say this couple has to present or explain themselves in a certain way or face the consequences, is not in anyone's best interest. We are all fighting to be and live our authentic selves, whoever and however we choose, whether in private or in public. One can not be authentic if one has to live up to some arbitrary standard of acceptableness or someone else's standard of acceptable."

which i think for me overrules the "they do bear some responsibility for how they are represented" argument, but i definitely get where folks are coming from on being frustrated that they engaged with the media in the first place.

[BullDog]

I don't believe any one couple's or individual's choices-even when aired in mass media- is going to have a big impact on how a group of people are viewed or effect our rights. Perhaps some people disagree. Jacki is being portrayed as a lesbian and seems butch to me (I don't know specifically how she herself identifies). I am a butch and a lesbian and I don't feel like how she portrays herself in the media or the decisions she makes reflect on me good, bad or indifferent. It could just as easily be argued that her decisions make lesbians or same sex marriage look bad, but no one seems to be saying that. I don't see how her decisions or presentation of herself reflects badly on transsexed/transgender people either.

[Girl_On_Fire]

I just ran across an open letter in my Facebook feed written in response to this couple's decision (or the media's decision) to use the word 'loophole' to describe Jacki's transition.

The line that touched me most was, "Too often, I see every letter under the LGBTQ umbrella discount one another in some way. We all have a fight and a struggle. Please don't ever discount the T. The T will never be silent again."

As for me, I do see both sides of the argument. I agree they have a right to live their lives as they see fit. I also completely understand the backlash from transgender folks and those of us who love them.

http://equallywed.com/community/2452-an-open-letter-to-the-lesbian-couple-who-chose-to-falsely-claim-a-woman-is-transgender-to-legally-marry

[EnderD_503]

Of course, on a basic level there is nothing problematic about what this couple has done. But it's more so the details that raise some concerns for me, not so much because of the couple themselves but because of how the media and public see things. I'm mainly conflicted about my feelings about going on a big American television show and some of the real impacts that can have.

I've read through the whole thread and have to agree with some others that it does seem like Jacki was in some way not entirely seeing herself as cissexed, whether she was identifying in some way as trans or not. And by that I mean that even if she identifies as female, there seem significant factors with the way that she interacts with her own body that suggest not feeling at ease with conventional/popularly believed female sex characteristics. So even while being female-identified, her relationship with her body might not necessarily mean she's cis. I don't actually know what you need to do to get your sex marker changed in the US, but in Canada you no longer have to have had surgery or be on T. If that's also the case where she lives, then its obvious that top surgery is actually something she wanted.

Another thing I noticed that one poster wrote, is that same-sex marriage was made legal again in California in the summer of 2013. I'm not really sure of what the timeline is like with their marriage/Jacki's transition, but I'm not entirely convinced that this was necessarily just to get married. I also wonder if Oprah/the media played up the marriage aspect as more of a factor than it initially was. I imagine for them it sounds more "sensational" that way.

But on the subject of Oprah/the media, there is the place where I start to have some concerns. And I want to make clear its not Jacki's transition that concerns me, but the consequences of this kind of mass media misunderstanding of same-sex marriage and trans/non-binary issues. Part of me almost feels like its irresponsible to go to the mass media with something like this. Maybe because I'm cynical, but I would basically never trust them to get the story right and wonder why any queer or trans person would except them to.

But the main reasons it concerns me is because of the already precarious status of transitioning. Even if we have somewhat more freedom than we once did as trans people, our lives are often determined by medical institutions, the DSM-IV/V and their constant scrutinisation of our lives and whether we should be allowed to have access to the treatments we need. For example, in Canada in order to get top surgery you either need to be able to come up with the funds yourself somehow or you need to be able to convince a psychiatrist that you're eligible for top surgery and so have your province's health care pay for it. While more mental health institutions are becoming somewhat more progressive, that isn't the case in all of them or with all psychiatrists, and essentially you still need to be able to "convince" them. And that's where my concern comes in, because all too often false allegations of people "abusing the system" has either set legislation backwards or stood in the way of their realisation. And even outside of an institutional level and more on a public level, this kind of media attention does affect the public's opinion which doesn't do any trans person or any gender non-conforming person who wants access to these services any favours.

This is where a lot of trans backlash against a story like this probably comes from. It's the same reason why some people in the trans community get angry about Thomas Beatie or the Canadian transguy who was breastfeeding his kid and volunteered to lead a breastfeeding group and received massive backlash from both ciswomen and other trans men. I might get angry at these trans community members who gatekeep as badly as cis people, I get pissed at them, think they're being hypocritical and so on. But as much as I get angry about it, I still recognise where that fear is coming from and that fear is really legitimate (that really needs to be understood), it's just not the proper way to deal with it. Because there are so many institutions and people gatekeeping when it comes to our own lives, a lot of trans people become afraid of the effects a story like this could have on them personally. I don't think that the reaction should be to attack other members of the community and its something I actively speak out against when I see it, but I still "get it."

It's really no one's fault but the media's for running and concocting sensationalist transition stories, stories of people potentially "abusing the system" (just to be clear, this phrase isn't one I agree with) or same-sex marriage stories. But I still have a hard time wrapping my head around why any queer or trans person would want to bring their personal lives into the media spotlight. More harm than good usually comes from it, and that's both on the personal level (for those sharing the personal, sensitive details of their lives) and communal level (as far as the wider impact).

[DapperButch]

Well, well, well. Interesting stuff.

This is copied/pasted from susans.org, a very respected site for up to date, correct information on trans laws.

California (Update 2013)

California will change both name and sex, and will issue a new birth certificate rather than amend the old one. California Health and Safety Code, Section 103425-103445, states: "A petition for the issuance of a new birth certificate in those cases shall be filed with the superior court of the county where the petitioner resides."

The State Office of Vital Records has provided this link to assist with changing gender (or gender and name). As of 2011, you no longer need to have surgery to change your California birth record. To obtain the court order for the gender change, have your doctor fill out an affidavit telling the court that you have undergone clinically appropriate treatment for change of gender.

http://www.drbecky.com/birthcert.html

Did I call bullshit? Indeed I believe I did. This is saying that as of 2011 all you had to do is say that you have "undergone clinically appropriate treatment for change of gender", in order to get a new birth certificate with a male gender marker. Guess what that means? That can be as simple as meeting with a licensed therapist ONE TIME and them writing a two sentence letter saying yeah, this person identifies as the other sex and is in their "right mind" (meaning they are not psychotic). That's it. So, bottom line, Jacki didn't need top surgery to marry her partner, she only needed this letter from a therapist, go to court, and get her birth certificate amended to say she is male. THAT"S IT! No surgery. No nothing. It is not like the "old days". Times have changed and states require/don't require different things.

Really, the "work" she had to do was get the letter for top surgery and then go through the pain of recovery. This was just for fun you see, as it had nothing to do with marrying her partner. In order to get this, there is also a good chance she had to sign paperwork for her surgeon saying that she identified as male and was changing her sex. Interesting, huh?

Here's the thing for me...which yeah, I know I have reiterated more than once in this thread. I don't give a fuck if you take male hormones (testosterone), get male chest reconstruction, or get surgery for a man made penis, and still identify as a female. Some FTMs don't do anything to their bodies and they are no less of a man than any other man. Why can't a female create a "male body" and still define as a "woman"? It's certainly not my business.

But, don't fucking lie to us and say you did the top surgery so that you could marry a female. I am pretty fucking confident that you would have bothered to check the law that changed back in 2011 before getting married in 2013.

Anyway, I am exhausted and it is 2 hours past my bed time or I would express why this is so bothersome to me. I believe that the choice to publicize this does hurt the gay community and the trans community. No doubt, in a very small way and with a small population, but I am disappointed. Maybe what really triggers me is that Jacki appears to have presented as butch all of these years. Since I am butch (and many butches identify as women, who I regard as part of my butch community), it ignites my irritation and causes disappoint. Since I am trans masculine, it does the same thing, but for other reasons. BUT, I know that the biggest frustration for me is the bullshit factor. Don't bullshit us. And don't publicize wrong information for the 100s of trans people out there in CA who think they have to have expensive and perhaps even unwanted surgery, in order to change their birth certificate in order to marry their female partner. That sucks.


P.S. As an aside, the 2013 change is noting the rule change that the person can get a NEW birth certificate, rather than just amending their old one, has nothing to do with the topic at hand. I just wanted to include the entire quote posted at Susan's.

[imperfect_cupcake]

This:

Here's the thing for me...which yeah, I know I have reiterated more than once in this thread. I don't give a fuck if you take male hormones (testosterone), get male chest reconstruction, or get surgery for a man made penis, and still identify as a female. Some FTMs don't do anything to their bodies and they are no less of a man than any other man. Why can't a female create a "male body" and still define as a "woman"? It's certainly not my business.


Thank you. I have been utterly baffled by responses. And I see no reason why someone can't ID as BOTH or NEITHER.

[BullDog]

She felt she needed to be male to get legally married, she may have had to say she felt male to get chest surgery- I don't know about the latter. Separate things or aligned? Who knows. I doubt she had chest surgery "for fun." I am not sure that automatically means she was lying or had ill intent. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. From the small clip I saw she didn't appear to know much about the process of transition, especially when she said she looked into transgender. She just doesn't sound knowledgeable to me. I see a lot of assumptions being made about her that may or may not be true.

If the process of getting your sex changed is easier these days, that's great news. Transsexed individuals are the ones who will benefit.

So I guess if I ever have the money to have chest surgery and need to say I feel I am male in order to get it, I will just not discuss my experience with other queers. The binary is certainly alive and well.

[DapperButch]

I posted something and then deleted it. I thought what would remain was my reason for deletion which was: "I broke my cardinal rule of not engaging on heated topics". Anyway, that didn't post, so I am posting this to acknowledge my deleting of a post.

[DapperButch]

I don't actually know what you need to do to get your sex marker changed in the US, but in Canada you no longer have to have had surgery or be on T. If that's also the case where she lives, then its obvious that top surgery is actually something she wanted.



It is state by state. In California, you do not need to have had top surgery or be on T in order to get your gender/sex markers changed.

Many states are moving in that direction. It is actually an amazing time here in the U.S. I filled out three (3) gender marker change forms for new driver licenses this week (all FTM). All 3 of the people have not had top surgery. Two still have a female name. One of them is pre-T. All that is required now in my state is the therapist/psychiatrist fill out a form stating that the person "identifies as male/female and that I see no reason why this would change in the foreseeable future".

Like I said, amazing stuff happening for trans people right now. Less government hoops and hurdles here in the U.S.

[Kelt]

It is state by state. In California, you do not need to have had top surgery or be on T in order to get your gender/sex markers changed.

Many states are moving in that direction. It is actually an amazing time here in the U.S. I filled out three (3) gender marker change forms for new driver license's this week (all FTM). All 3 of the people have not had top surgery. Two still have a female name. One of them is pre-T. All that is required now in my state is the therapist/psychiatrist fill out a form stating that the person "identifies as male/female and that I see no reason why this would change in the foreseeable future".

Like I said, amazing stuff happening for trans people right now. Less government hoops and hurdles here in the U.S.

Earlier there was a link I tried to look at and it wasn't working so natch' I had to go look because CA is the state I am in and I was curious (I have no intention at this time of changing my marker but wanted to know) and I took the legal code number and traced it directly. I thought it was interesting that they said:

"103430. (a) The petition shall be accompanied by an affidavit of a
physician attesting that the person has undergone clinically
appropriate treatment for the purpose of gender transition, based on
contemporary medical standards, and a certified copy of the court
order changing the applicant's name, if applicable. The physician's
affidavit shall be accepted as conclusive proof of gender change if
it contains substantially the following language"..Yada...yada

Yet it doesn't specify a source like DSM or specific procedure language in the part I bolded. I think it is probably good in that it can continue to adapt as things change, but I hope that doesn't leave room for back-peddling in the future.

Anyway, I thought it was curious wording. Anyone in CA who wants to read the whole proccess from the state, it's only about 5 para, this is a link to it (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=hsc&group=103001-104000&file=103425-103445).

Little off-topic, but there it is.

[DapperButch]

Earlier there was a link I tried to look at and it wasn't working so natch' I had to go look because CA is the state I am in and I was curious (I have no intention at this time of changing my marker but wanted to know) and I took the legal code number and traced it directly. I thought it was interesting that they said:

"103430. (a) The petition shall be accompanied by an affidavit of a
physician attesting that the person has undergone clinically
appropriate treatment for the purpose of gender transition, based on
contemporary medical standards, and a certified copy of the court
order changing the applicant's name, if applicable. The physician's
affidavit shall be accepted as conclusive proof of gender change if
it contains substantially the following language"..Yada...yada

Yet it doesn't specify a source like DSM or specific procedure language in the part I bolded. I think it is probably good in that it can continue to adapt as things change, but I hope that doesn't leave room for back-peddling in the future.

Anyway, I thought it was curious wording. Anyone in CA who wants to read the whole proccess from the state, it's only about 5 para, this is a link to it (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=hsc&group=103001-104000&file=103425-103445).

Little off-topic, but there it is.

I would suspect that they are referring to the Standards of Care. All trans* providers (medical docs, surgeons, therapists), tend to follow these standards set by WPATH.

http://www.wpath.org/uploaded_files/140/files/IJT%20SOC,%20V7.pdf

Here's another CA link: http://transgenderlawcenter.org/issues/id/changing-your-legal-identification-in-california which defines it as "What “clinically appropriate treatment” means for you is between you and your doctor. (this is under the court order gender change)

[Kelt]

I would suspect that they are referring to the Standards of Care. All trans* providers (medical docs, surgeons, therapists), tend to follow these standards set by WPATH.

http://www.wpath.org/uploaded_files/140/files/IJT%20SOC,%20V7.pdf

Here's another CA link: http://transgenderlawcenter.org/issues/id/changing-your-legal-identification-in-california which defines it as "What “clinically appropriate treatment” means for you is between you and your doctor. (this is under the court order gender change)

I understand that there are generally accepted and adhered to standards, I guess that's why it surprised me that they (wpath) just weren't stated as such in the language.

As long as it works.

[Girl_On_Fire]

She just doesn't sound knowledgeable to me.

This was the thing that got me too. She actually seemed pretty clueless about the whole thing. I can't image if that laws are as they are that she felt she had to have the surgery. I'm sure there's a lot more to the story, which is unfortunate, because the way it was presented was potentially-harmful to the community at large.

[BullDog]

Yes the news story made it sound like she had to chop off her breasts to become male to get married. I doubt that's the real story.

She very well may have wanted to have chest surgery- whether she was getting married or not- and that may or may not indicate feeling she is male/transgender/transsexed.

I am a butch woman and have no feelings of being transsexed or transgendered or male and I really, really want to have chest surgery. Yesterday I was trying on shirts and hated how my chest area looked. No it is not the same thing as being born into the wrong body or being assigned the wrong sex at birth. But it is body dysmorphia for me and my body does not all line up with my gender or sexuality as a stone butch. My discomfort level is getting worse. I don't know if it is getting older, gaining weight and other personal issues I have been dealing with, but it is getting worse. I really need to start that piggy bank for surgery. If I ever do undergo that process, I will be navigating a system not really set up for someone like me, so I will just have to do the best I can and hopefully I won't have to lie about anything. I really don't know.

So I when I read some of the comments here or at Huffington Post or Gawker or other places it feels crappy. My situation is not exactly the same, but in some ways it does feel personal to me.

Gender, sexuality and how we feel about our bodies is not easy for any of us. For butches- most of are in the space between whether we clearly id as female/woman or male/man or not.

The laws are fucked up for transsexed/transgender people and they are for lesbians and gay men too.

[Kelt]

I'm glad that the laws are changing so that people getting more rights around what they can do to their bodies. It has always puzzled me as to why I can get my chest added to with just a checkbook, but having it altered the other way requires a checkbook and analysis. It seems silly to me. Any other body part I want to change? No problem! 25 years ago I had elective eye surgery, I had it done in another country because they were much more experienced, but still, just a check, no question as to my sanity.

As for having top surgery without having a specific "male" transition in mind, this is changing quickly. I belong to another forum (not BF oriented) that has people of every conceivable stripe, and there is a lot of interest in top surgery for cis women and many other variations on gender, gender queers who just want to be non-gendered, and third gendered persons.

The requirements are ridiculous and are changing although not quickly enough. In my opinion this should be like any other elective surgery, a personal decision for personal reasons.

[EnderD_503]

The surgeon I went to here will operate on people who identify as gender queer/gender neutral, butch etc. Psychiatrists are becoming more accepting when it comes to approving people who identify as the above for top surgery as well...but just like with trans guys there are similar hurdles to jump as far as needing to convince them that you identify the way you do, that surgery is a big enough "need"( :rolleyes: ) and the usual.

[DapperButch]

The surgeon I went to here will operate on people who identify as gender queer/gender neutral, butch etc. Psychiatrists are becoming more accepting when it comes to approving people who identify as the above for top surgery as well...but just like with trans guys there are similar hurdles to jump as far as needing to convince them that you identify the way you do, that surgery is a big enough "need"( :rolleyes: ) and the usual.

Yes, more respected surgeons are becoming open to operating on genderqueer individuals. For example, although Garramone still requires a letter, he is very welcoming to genderqueer individuals. His letter only requires the therapist to say that the surgery "is the next step in the transition process" (or something close to that...hell, how do you think I got him to operate on me? ;)).

Of course, you could always find a surgeon who didn't follow the Standards of Care and didn't require a letter, but historically the surgeons whose results were desired required letters.

Like I said, things are rapidly, very rapidly changing. :)

As an aside, who did your surgery, EnderD?

[EnderD_503]

Yes, more respected surgeons are becoming open to operating on genderqueer individuals. For example, although Garramone still requires a letter, he is very welcoming to genderqueer individuals. His letter only requires the therapist to say that the surgery "is the next step in the transition process" (or something close to that...hell, how do you think I got him to operate on me? ;)).

Of course, you could always find a surgeon who didn't follow the Standards of Care and didn't require a letter, but historically the surgeons whose results were desired required letters.

Like I said, things are rapidly, very rapidly changing. :)

As an aside, who did your surgery, EnderD?

I had my surgery with Dr. McLean in Mississauga (Ontario, Canada). He's probably the best known top surgeon here and has been performing top surgery since the 80s. He also didn't require a letter. All he asked was a few questions about how I identified, how long since I'd come out, transition etc. and then gave me all the info I needed about preparation, risks etc. He seemed more concerned about making sure I was making an informed decision than he was about identity. Much more refreshing than going through CamH where you run the risk of getting a shit shrink who makes you jump through hoops, and in comparison to those I know who got it through them, I thought McLean was a lot more professional and cautious about both the surgery and the follow-ups.

Personally, I was very satisfied with the results and was also glad that he didn't use drains (one of the reasons I chose him). He was also really thorough about follow-ups and scar treatment.

[DapperButch]

I had my surgery with Dr. McLean in Mississauga (Ontario, Canada). He's probably the best known top surgeon here and has been performing top surgery since the 80s. He also didn't require a letter. All he asked was a few questions about how I identified, how long since I'd come out, transition etc. and then gave me all the info I needed about preparation, risks etc. He seemed more concerned about making sure I was making an informed decision than he was about identity. Much more refreshing than going through CamH where you run the risk of getting a shit shrink who makes you jump through hoops, and in comparison to those I know who got it through them, I thought McLean was a lot more professional and cautious about both the surgery and the follow-ups.

Personally, I was very satisfied with the results and was also glad that he didn't use drains (one of the reasons I chose him). He was also really thorough about follow-ups and scar treatment.

McLean! I have heard great things about him. I'm glad you are pleased with your experience and results.

[EnderD_503]

Nice! Yeah would definitely recommend him for anyone in the area or who can make it up here. Great surgeon and nice guy, plus his staff are all really friendly and helpful people too.