Arizona Divorce Case Hits Snag Because Husband Gave Birth

[betsy]

When they've been busy changing laws left and right and center for the sake of political correctness/human rights.....have they even considered all the legal problems that may be involved?

I must be suffering from iron-deficiency. I couldn't get past the second sentence - I'm having a hard time trying to follow.

PHOENIX – An Arizona couple seeking a divorce hit an unusual snag that could prevent the marriage from legally being dissolved.

A judge is questioning whether a same-sex marriage ban bars him from ending the union — or even recognizing its validity — because the husband was born a woman and underwent a sex change but retained female reproductive organs and gave birth to three children.

More....

Read more: http://www.foxnews.c.../#ixzz2H7qbg23R

Edited January 5, 2013 by betsy

[Guest]

I bet they're already signing contracts for the reality tv show...

How can it be a sex change if you retain the reproductive organs? What else defines us? Not the elbows.

[betsy]

I bet they're already signing contracts for the reality tv show...

How can it be a sex change if you retain the reproductive organs? What else defines us? Not the elbows.

It gave me a headache. Imagine being the judge?

[Canuckistani]

I bet they're already signing contracts for the reality tv show...

How can it be a sex change if you retain the reproductive organs? What else defines us? Not the elbows.

the pc answer is we define ourselves. She calls himself a man, bada bing, she's a man. This is a man with tit's - I believe he was nursing as well.

But in the end, who cares? Two people got married, they now want a divorce. What's the hangup?

[betsy]

the pc answer is we define ourselves. She calls himself a man, bada bing, she's a man. This is a man with tit's - I believe he was nursing as well.

Ha-ha-ha!

[Guest American Woman]

How can it be a sex change if you retain the reproductive organs? What else defines us? Not the elbows.

Exactly. And when one makes the conscious decision to make use of said reproductive organs, one is a woman who underwent an operation to make some physical changes, and that's the extent of it.

[sharkman]

What a freakin freakshow.

[Michael Hardner]

They are pursuing happiness, as are the people who enjoy the 15 seconds of amusement this "news" story gives. Life clicks on.

[BC_chick]

the pc answer is we define ourselves. She calls himself a man, bada bing, she's a man.

Exactly. And when one makes the conscious decision to make use of said reproductive organs, one is a woman who underwent an operation to make some physical changes, and that's the extent of it.

Not true. There are several steps to the process. Starting from diagnosis by a therapist, followed by living at least one year as the other gender, taking hormones and followed by having at least one irreversible reassignment surgery.

Even with chest surgery alone (thereby keeping all lower parts intact) a woman can legally become a man. Reproductive organs are the last thing on the list.

They are pursuing happiness, as are the people who enjoy the 15 seconds of amusement this "news" story gives. Life clicks on.

So true, heterosexism often seems to go hand in hand with a fascination with LGBT community. Too bad they'll never admit why.

Edited January 6, 2013 by BC_chick

[Guest American Woman]

Not true. There are several steps to the process. Starting from diagnosis by a therapist, followed by living at least one year as the other gender, taking hormones and followed by having at least one irreversible reassignment surgery.

Even with chest surgery alone (thereby keeping all lower parts intact) a woman can legally become a man. Reproductive organs are the last thing on the list.

Right. And if one hasn't completed the process, if one still is able to have babies, one isn't yet physically a man. A man can't conceive and give birth.

To me one has to pick one gender or the other - don't expect society to accept you completely as a man if you are not willing to live completely as a man.

Which was my only point.

[Canuckistani]

Who cares. This person certainly seemed to want to have it both ways, and I don't see the problem. I guess it arises if s/he goes to a public bathroom. Or wants to work for a local rape counselling service. We had Rape Relief reject a transgender woman because she was once a man and they don't accept men. I wonder if they would accept this "man" since she was once a woman, or still is, depending on the day of the week. I don't care what people do, but I guess it could lead to some confusing situations. I don't see why the marriage is invalid. If I followed correctly, a former woman who identifies as a man married another man and had a baby. Since the judge says he might still be a woman, wouldn't this be a conventional male female marriage an totally valid?

[msj]

Right. And if one hasn't completed the process, if one still is able to have babies, one isn't yet physically a man. A man can't conceive and give birth.

To me one has to pick one gender or the other - don't expect society to accept you completely as a man if you are not willing to live completely as a man.

Why, how authoritarian of you.

Why do people have to choose? What business is it of ours?

The simple solution is for the state to not worry about such distinctions over "sex" or "gender" (let the religious worry about that so then they can feel mighty and moral by not marrying these gender "freaks") and let any two consenting adults (other than close blood relations) marry.

What's the BFD?

Where's the skin off anyone else's nose?

It extends the legal rights and responsibilities to all who choose to form a partnership and keeps things simple by keeping such partnerships down to two people.

But it's probably the puritanical mindset coming through here: the fear that someone, somewhere, might actually be happy.

Nope, can't allow that to happen - must conform or be forever unhappy.

If the religious kept their religious nonsense out of public policy this story would be a non-event. The couple would be granted a divorce just like anyone else and life would move on. BFD.

[Guest]

Try as I might, I can't find a religious reference in there, nor anyone who wants to deny them happiness.

Edited January 6, 2013 by bcsapper

[msj]

Try as I might, I can't find a religious reference in there, nor anyone who wants to deny them happiness.

You don't think Arizona does not allow "same sex" marriage due to religious belief?

Really?

You don't think people's view of gender and sex has been filtered through religious belief systems?

Really?

You do know that religious people are more likely to be authoritarian about these things whereas non-religious people are more libertarian about such things?

As for denying happiness - if it was known that these two were "really" two women then they would not have been able to marry in the first place.

That is denying happiness.

[Guest]

I was referring to the thread, not the state.

[msj]

I was referring to the thread, not the state.

You don't think AW's stance of people having to "pick" a gender has anything to do with denying happiness?

[Guest]

That was the only comment I read twice.

No, I don't think AW was trying to deny anyone happiness. I think it was more a statement that this will happen, so don't be surprised when it does.

I'll stand corrected by AW, of course, if I'm wrong.

Edited January 6, 2013 by bcsapper

[betsy]

Disregard religion. Disregard individual happiness!

We're talking about the impact on existing laws. Like I said, did they take into consideration how it would affect existing laws - not to mention these people who are going through this mess - before they passed laws willy-nilly all about?

Will they do a "band-aid" solution? Expect some ripple effect....

Edited January 6, 2013 by betsy

[betsy]

A British tycoon and father of two has been a man and a woman ... and a man again ... and knows which sex he'd rather be

http://www.dailymail...ows-hed-be.html

Britain's youngest sex-swap patient has decided she want to go back to being a boy – because she experiences too many mood swings as a girl.

http://www.parentdish.co.uk/2012/10/29/britains-youngest-transgender-sex-change-patient-wants-to-go-back-to-being-a-boy/

Edited January 6, 2013 by betsy

[The_Squid]

Oh boy! Tabloid headlines! And they're BIG too!

[Michael Hardner]

We're talking about the impact on existing laws. Like I said, did they take into consideration how it would affect existing laws - not to mention these people who are going through this mess - before they passed laws willy-nilly all about?

I doubt it. Let's think back to how similar changes ripple through the legal system. It seems to me that any previous laws that are on the books stay there until forgotten, amended or challenged. I suppose that judges consider the impact of changing those things in extreme cases only.

[Guest American Woman]

No, I don't think AW was trying to deny anyone happiness. I think it was more a statement that this will happen, so don't be surprised when it does.

I'll stand corrected by AW, of course, if I'm wrong.

You've got it right.

Of course I'm not trying to deny anyone happiness; I've even said quite clearly that I base my vote on social issues (and that's for everyone's rights, not against).

[BC_chick]

Right. And if one hasn't completed the process, if one still is able to have babies, one isn't yet physically a man. A man can't conceive and give birth.

To me one has to pick one gender or the other - don't expect society to accept you completely as a man if you are not willing to live completely as a man.

Which was my only point.

Actually, the issue is very complex given that not all people are born with a vagina/ovaries or penis/testes. Sexual organs develop in the womb as a fetus and it doesn't always go one way or another.

http://en.wikipedia....ment#Conditions

When it comes to sexual organs, the world is not a binary place and you're definitely not the one who gets to call the shots as to what defines a man or what defines a woman.

Edited January 6, 2013 by BC_chick

[Sleipnir]

When it comes to sexual organs, the world is not a binary place and you're definitely not the one who gets to call the shots as to what defines a man or what defines a woman.

Technically a male has Y chromosome and a woman is lack of a Y chromosome.

XY = Male

XX = Female

XXY = Male

XXX = Female

XXXY = Male

XXXX = Female

ETC

If you're born with XY chromosome and you undergo a 'sex' change to be a female, you would still be a male. A true sex change cannot happen in the human species.

[BC_chick]

Technically a male has Y chromosome and a woman is lack of a Y chromosome.

XY = Male

XX = Female

XXY = Male

XXX = Female

XXXY = Male

XXXX = Female

ETC

If you're born with XY chromosome and you undergo a 'sex' change to be a female, you would still be a male. A true sex change cannot happen in the human species.

Gender depends on various things, chromosomes are just one part of it.

As I said before, the issue is very complex and there is no simple answer to what is a man and what is a woman.

Edited January 6, 2013 by BC_chick