Arizona Divorce Case Hits Snag Because Husband Gave Birth

[Bonam]

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.

People love to over-complicate things, to cloud them in rhetoric so that they seem more complex than they really are.

[BC_chick]

People love to over-complicate things, to cloud them in rhetoric so that they seem more complex than they really are.

If xy chromosome = penis/testes = man and xx chromosomes = ovaries/vagina = woman, I would totally agree with you. Very simple.

If you want to ignore the many shades of grey go right ahead but it doesn't make it reality. Sex and gender are not binary.

Edited January 6, 2013 by BC_chick

[msj]

If you want to ignore the many shades of grey go right ahead but it doesn't make it reality. Sex and gender are not binary.

I agree with you that it's not binary.

However, I also think that this whole issue is quite simple too.

If Arizona was a state that allowed for equal marriages then who cares how many chromosomes the two people getting married have.

It becomes a moot point and the law doesn't get confused over granting a divorce to a married couple.

But since Arizona does care so much about penises and vaginas this kind of thing does complicate things.

Either the marriage is null and void and therefore good luck with splitting the "matrimonial" property or the law is an ass and these two should be granted a divorce since they were obviously a married couple although some people like to focus on body parts rather than whether or not two people love each other and were in a committed relationship together.

IOW: it depends on whether you view these people as "freaks" or as human beings.

[Canuckistani]

IOW: it depends on whether you view these people as "freaks" or as human beings.

More binary thinking. They can be both, and most of us fly our freak flag in one way or another. Anyway, as far as the law is concerned, two adults should be allowed to marry and divorce, and the law should not concern itself with any "complications."

[BC_chick]

I agree with you that it's not binary.

However, I also think that this whole issue is quite simple too.

If Arizona was a state that allowed for equal marriages then who cares how many chromosomes the two people getting married have.

It becomes a moot point and the law doesn't get confused over granting a divorce to a married couple.

But since Arizona does care so much about penises and vaginas this kind of thing does complicate things.

Either the marriage is null and void and therefore good luck with splitting the "matrimonial" property or the law is an ass and these two should be granted a divorce since they were obviously a married couple although some people like to focus on body parts rather than whether or not two people love each other and were in a committed relationship together.

IOW: it depends on whether you view these people as "freaks" or as human beings.

No argument from me there.

However, none of that will happen while people have preconceived notions of gender and think they can define it as dichotomy on a subjective level.

I was merely pointing out that mother nature doesn't even know what defines gender, who are we to try and define it.

Unlike them, I'm stating facts, not opinion.

Edited January 7, 2013 by BC_chick

[Bonam]

I was merely pointing out that mother nature doesn't even know what defines gender, who are we to try and define it.

We are human beings, the only species that possesses the cognitive capacity to try to define things. We should try to define things precisely because we are able to do so.

If xy chromosome = penis/testes = man and xx chromosomes = ovaries/vagina = woman, I would totally agree with you. Very simple.

If you want to ignore the many shades of grey go right ahead but it doesn't make it reality. Sex and gender are not binary.

There are males, there are females, and there are people with which something went wrong. Now, on a social level, we can and perhaps should welcome and accept all individuals, but there is no denying the biologically obvious. If someone develops an extra finger, or is missing one, we recognize that as a genetic/developmental problem, we don't try to place it on a spectrum of number of fingers and claim that all numbers of fingers are just as good as all others. But if someone develops an extra sexual organ or is missing one, we pretend that everything is just fine. But it's not, it's no less an anomaly than a missing or extra finger, limb, head, etc. I'm sure some people here will now proceed with namecalling, crying "bigot", even though I have stated nothing besides biological facts...

Oh well.

Edited January 7, 2013 by Bonam

[bud]

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.

what if a person doesn't want to pick a gender to identify with in order to respond to you and society's demand?

[Guest American Woman]

what if a person doesn't want to pick a gender to identify with in order to respond to you and society's demand?

The man in question picked the gender himself. He asked society to recognize him as a man.

Edited January 7, 2013 by American Woman

[Guest American Woman]

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

What does that have to do with this incident and anything I've had to say? Every instance of defining a man and a woman is complicated because sometimes nature goes awry? - that's your position? If you'll notice the heading of the source you linked to, it's "Disorders of sex development." Repeating. Disorders. Which I was already aware of, but that doesn't mean I'm any less impressed with your Google skills. It just has nothing to do with this issue.

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.

It wasn't me who called the shots. It was the woman turned man who asked society to recognize the new him as a man. He's the one who asked to be legally declared a male - birth certificate, driver's license, marriage license, etc. - so evidently being defined as a man mattered to him. He didn't find it all that complex when asking for that recognition - he said he was male, not intersex, not female.

You say I don't get to call the shots as to what defines a man and a woman? We, and society, most definitely call the shots all the time. The school system does it when deciding who showers together in gym class. The prison system does it when they put men and women in different cells. I do it when I decide who my teenage daughters can have sleepovers with. If Johnny has a penis but Johnny says he's a girl, most sane parents wouldn't say 'well, then - it's ok to share a bed with my daughter.' And if a woman goes through the process of becoming a man, becoming legally a man by choice, and then falls back on the female organs when life doesn't turn out quite the way he wanted, he shouldn't be surprised if it bites him in the ass.

--------------------------------------------

Unlike them, I'm stating facts, not opinion.

We, too, have stated facts. You, too, have expressed your opinion.

[BC_chick]

AW, I like that you're copying my expression about googling skills s in trying to make your point, but you're using it wrongly. When I referred to your googling skills, I was talking about an issue you have no clue about otherwise - BC Labour Laws.

On the contrary, gender issues and human sexuality are topics that interest me. For me to read wiki entries on the topic is not at all unusual. I certainly hope you're not so lame to be read BC Labour Laws in your free time, but who knows. There's no accounting for personal taste.

Anyway, even if you completely fail at your attempt to be witty by using the same expression I used on you, it's hilarious to see it bothered you that much. It wasn't my intention but I do admit I chuckled seeing you trying to throw it back at me.

[BC_chick]

We are human beings, the only species that possesses the cognitive capacity to try to define things. We should try to define things precisely because we are able to do so.

There are males, there are females, and there are people with which something went wrong. Now, on a social level, we can and perhaps should welcome and accept all individuals, but there is no denying the biologically obvious. If someone develops an extra finger, or is missing one, we recognize that as a genetic/developmental problem, we don't try to place it on a spectrum of number of fingers and claim that all numbers of fingers are just as good as all others. But if someone develops an extra sexual organ or is missing one, we pretend that everything is just fine. But it's not, it's no less an anomaly than a missing or extra finger, limb, head, etc. I'm sure some people here will now proceed with namecalling, crying "bigot", even though I have stated nothing besides biological facts...

Oh well.

I wouldn't call that argument bigotted. It's irrelevant and little simplistic, but bigotted might be a little too strong since you didn't put anyone down for it (ahem ahem, like some other posters on this thread).

And I would totally agree with the point you're making if the world was filled 50% with people with fingers, 50% without, and those people who fell outside of one of those two we would refer to having some kind of anomaly.

But people aren't like that, we all have fingers. There is no spectrum for fingers for there to be varying shades in between.

Your argument doesn't really make sense.

Edited January 9, 2013 by BC_chick

[betsy]

deleted.

Edited January 11, 2013 by betsy