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

[GraffitiBoi]

Originally Posted by vagina

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.

[Girl_On_Fire]

Originally Posted by GraffitiBoi

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!

[Kelt]

Originally Posted by candy_coated_bitch

<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.

Originally Posted by BullDog

<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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by honeybarbara

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.