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

[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]

Originally Posted by BullDog

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

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.

[BullDog]

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

[DapperButch]

Originally Posted by honeybarbara

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]

Originally Posted by DapperButch

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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