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

[Gemme]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[aishah]

Originally Posted by Gemme

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...-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.

[DapperButch]

Originally Posted by EnderD_503

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]

Originally Posted by DapperButch

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.

Little off-topic, but there it is.