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/2014/0...&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]

Originally Posted by ~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 ~

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.

Originally Posted by ~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 ~

~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]

Originally Posted by 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.



~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]

Originally Posted by DapperButch

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]

Originally Posted by 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.



~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.

Originally Posted by 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!

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!