Could "Sex-Change Stanton" legally remain married to his wife?

[BrainGlutton]

Steve Stanton, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Stanton) city manager of Largo, Florida, since 1993, recently was fired after he announced his intention to have a sex-change operation. Interestingly, he has also declared his wife is behind him in this decision and he has no intention of divorcing her -- but on Larry King Live, 4/13/07, he did announce they were separating. But is the legal status of the marriage up to him? If he has the surgery he's legally a woman. And Florida does not recognize same-sex marriage. So . . .

[Menocchio]

Depends on how the state defines gender.

I think it's in Texas where it's defined by chromosome, so someone can marry their destination gender following a sex change.

[cerberus]

This depends on the parsing of the definitions, that is, what the court says "sex" means.

A MtF transsexual is still genotypically male (XY). The purpose of the procedures, including the hormonal therapies, castration and vaginoplasty is to create the cosmetic aspects of being phenotypically female. It might come down to a sort of "grandfathering" the pre-existing marriage in to a same-sex scenario. Genetically, the new woman(legal) is still male(genetically). The legal redefinition of the transsexual is basically a social contract entreating society to treat the transsexual as a woman.

The courts seem to rule in favor of the prior legal sex. I recall a recent case, no cite, where a man sued to rescind/end his alimony agreement to his ex-wife, who is now a FtM transsexual.

As a general rule, courts are rather loathe to employ ex-post-facto rulings. While certain churches will annihilate a marriage if the basic grounds for the marriage were flawed or non-existent(annulment), the effect is to say that the marriage never existed.

At the time of the marriage, the erstwhile partners were legally of age, and were opposite sexed, as required. What the courts would do in such a case is cheerfully grant a divorce. But I'm not aware of a case where the court would force a divorce, at least not when the parties are happy to stay married, and not when the marriage was legal at its inception.

[BrainGlutton]

I recall a recent case, no cite, where a man sued to rescind/end his alimony agreement to his ex-wife, who is now a FtM transsexual.

Debated here. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=414359)

[BrainGlutton]

FYI, tangentially relevant Pit thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=410599) (devoted to the propriety or otherwise of firing Stanton).

[BrainGlutton]

Interestingly, he has also declared his wife is behind him in this decision and he has no intention of divorcing her -- but on Larry King Live, 4/13/07, he did announce they were separating.

At least it's a relief to know he's not some Ogdamn dyke! ;)


MISTER SLAVE: Mister Garrison, I'm gay! I don't like vaginas!

[Ensign Edison]

I would think most trans people wouldn't care to take advantage of a legal loophole that allowed them to be in a gay marriage, if it was based on an incorrect legal presumption. But then, I suppose that's just how powerful the urge to marry one's partner is.

[BrainGlutton]

I would think most trans people wouldn't care to take advantage of a legal loophole that allowed them to be in a gay marriage, if it was based on an incorrect legal presumption. But then, I suppose that's just how powerful the urge to marry one's partner is.

Well, in this case Stanton is already married and he just wants to keep his wife for legal purposes -- for the sake of the attendant benefits WRT insurance, income tax, etc., I assume; they've got the kids to think of.

[Johanna]

If two individuals love one another and want to be together, what difference ought it make how they define their gender and sexuality, or even whether they define these at all? Isn't "I like this individual" enough? The law is often an ass anyway. If it lets you live the way you want, never mind what reasoning it took to get there.

[BrainGlutton]

If two individuals love one another and want to be together . . .

In this case, they may well love each other but they don't want to be together.

[Sunrazor]

See, this is where the whole marriage definition thing gets really blurred. Who would have ever thought, back when people started hooking up and societies started writing rules about said up-hooking, that the day would come when people could actually become a different person? I know it's been argued on these threads that losing an arm or a leg doesn't change the human being, so losing a penis and adding a vagina shouldn't either. But I think it's apples and oranges at that point. The differences between male and female aren't just physical, they're psychic and spiritual. A one-legged woman is still a woman. But a woman with a penis, testicles (operational or not), hairy, breastless chest and masculine name isn't a woman, it's a man, and that is a different human being than what started out. Even if the person claims, "But deep down inside, I'm the same person," he/she is still a completely different person that what was presented to society.

Is there truly a genetic way to tell whether a specific grouping of muscle, bone and blood vessels is male or female? If so, then all the surgery in the world isn't going to change that, and in that case I think we need to examine the ethics of even performing sex-change surgery. If there isn't a way, then society needs to rewrite some rules about what a person is, because it does affect all of us.

[Ensign Edison]

Sunrazor, most of your assumptions, while commonplace, are simply false. Biological sex may be impossible to change at the root, but gender is social, so a person can appear full male and still be a woman, though few wish to live that way. You're also, frankly, talking from a sort of personal-wisdom common-sense mentality that people tend to apply to this issue when they're not familiar with the facts. The reason we don't need to "examine the ethics" is that it's been very established that it's as unethical to withhold effective treatment for this condition as it is for any other. The medical establishment is okay with "sex changes" because they mean the difference between misery and death or happiness and life for most of the people who get them. Your philosophical ramblings about the immutable nature of the body don't add up to years of scientific study and countless personal accounts. Too often, people decide to stay ignorant and cling to such mentality because it allows them to legitimize their discomfort with the condition.

[Sunrazor]

Sunrazor, most of your assumptions, while commonplace, are simply false. Biological sex may be impossible to change at the root, but gender is social, so a person can appear full male and still be a woman, though few wish to live that way. You're also, frankly, talking from a sort of personal-wisdom common-sense mentality that people tend to apply to this issue when they're not familiar with the facts. The reason we don't need to "examine the ethics" is that it's been very established that it's as unethical to withhold effective treatment for this condition as it is for any other. The medical establishment is okay with "sex changes" because they mean the difference between misery and death or happiness and life for most of the people who get them. Your philosophical ramblings about the immutable nature of the body don't add up to years of scientific study and countless personal accounts. Too often, people decide to stay ignorant and cling to such mentality because it allows them to legitimize their discomfort with the condition.
Hmm, so wisdom and common sense are not only bad, they're just plain wrong? Since you claim to have a firm grasp of the facts, answer the one clear question I asked -- it is possible to genetically identify, beyond doubt, a human being as male or female? And if this is possible, how can a person "be" one thing but "appear" to be the other without surgery?

[Ensign Edison]

Hmm, so wisdom and common sense are not only bad, they're just plain wrong? Since you claim to have a firm grasp of the facts, answer the one clear question I asked -- it is possible to genetically identify, beyond doubt, a human being as male or female? And if this is possible, how can a person "be" one thing but "appear" to be the other without surgery?

Your approach is starting to seem deliberately antagonistic, to me, especially as you're twisting my words beyond all reason. Additionally, none of what you said matters as to whether it's ethical to allow the only effective medical treatment for a defined and recognized medical condition. And yes, "common sense" is bad when relied on to the exclusion of facts, why shouldn't it be? Human beings make notoriously bad witnesses. We don't just uphold the scientific method as one of our greatest achievements because we like having computers to do so on. We have always needed tools to navigate and understand the universe.

[Sunrazor]

Your approach is starting to seem deliberately antagonistic, to me, especially as you're twisting my words beyond all reason. Additionally, none of what you said matters as to whether it's ethical to allow the only effective medical treatment for a defined and recognized medical condition. And yes, "common sense" is bad when relied on to the exclusion of facts, why shouldn't it be? Human beings make notoriously bad witnesses. We don't just uphold the scientific method as one of our greatest achievements because we like having computers to do so on. We have always needed tools to navigate and understand the universe.
My asking you for facts you claim to know shouldn't antagonize you, it should offer you an opportunity to enlighten without belittling or resorting to broad philosophical double-talk. You still haven't answered my question. I'll ask it again. Is it possible to genetically identify, beyond doubt, a human being as male or female? And if this is possible, how can a person "be" one thing but "appear" to be the other without surgery?

Does anybody think this is an unfair question?

[BrainGlutton]

Hmm, so wisdom and common sense are not only bad, they're just plain wrong? Since you claim to have a firm grasp of the facts, answer the one clear question I asked -- it is possible to genetically identify, beyond doubt, a human being as male or female? And if this is possible, how can a person "be" one thing but "appear" to be the other without surgery?

Sometimes, a baby with an XY chromosome pair (male) is born with female or indeterminate/hermaphroditic genitalia. Something went hinky during the gestation process. All human genitals start out as the same identical bit of fetal tissue, and then at some point it beings to develop one way or the other -- basic high-school bio. Usually, the parents decide to raise the child as a girl, even if additional surgery is necessary to make the genitalia completely female.

I've never heard of a baby with an XX (female) pair being born with male genitalia, but I suppose it could be possible.

[Ensign Edison]

My asking you for facts you claim to know shouldn't antagonize you, it should offer you an opportunity to enlighten without belittling or resorting to broad philosophical double-talk. You still haven't answered my question. I'll ask it again. Is it possible to genetically identify, beyond doubt, a human being as male or female? And if this is possible, how can a person "be" one thing but "appear" to be the other without surgery?

Does anybody think this is an unfair question?

Does anybody think it is relevant to whether it's ethical to withhold effective treatment, which was the assertion you made in order to slyly introduce your agenda? Your question puzzles me, because the answer you're looking for supports the facts. It's precisely because gender is a purely social phenomenon that it is mutable. I can tell why you're doing this, now, though, so if you feel unsatisfied with my responses thus far I invite you to Pit me for it rather than continuing here.

[BrainGlutton]

Let's remember this thread is about certain legal aspects of marriage as related to transsexuals, not the ethics or propriety of doing the surgery.

[Sunrazor]

Does anybody think it is relevant to whether it's ethical to withhold effective treatment, which was the assertion you made in order to slyly introduce your agenda? Your question puzzles me, because the answer you're looking for supports the facts. It's precisely because gender is a purely social phenomenon that it is mutable. I can tell why you're doing this, now, though, so if you feel unsatisfied with my responses thus far I invite you to Pit me for it rather than continuing here.Nope, no pitting. Just trying to get facts. If the answer is "yes," then the debate goes one way; if it is "no" then the debate goes another way. I'm sitting here with (believe it or not) an open mind waiting for new data on which I can base a better conclusion. If you are at all familiar with my posting history, you know I've been known to change my mind in the past.

Last chance, Ensign -- is there a way?

[Sunrazor]

Let's remember this thread is about certain legal aspects of marriage as related to transsexuals, not the ethics or propriety of doing the surgery.Yep, the whole "ethics" thing was almost an after-thought in my first posting. But I need an answer to my question before I can begin to wrestle with any legal/social issues here.

Bear in mind, BrainGlutton and Ensign, this is the first time I've ever given the whole sex-change issue any serious thought at all. I'm a beginner here.

[Ensign Edison]

I already answered the question. I'll happily answer it again if the answer wasn't clear, but start another thread, please, GD if not the Pit.

[BrainGlutton]

Bear in mind, BrainGlutton and Ensign, this is the first time I've ever given the whole sex-change issue any serious thought at all. I'm a beginner here.

In that case, I suggest starting with a simple evening dress, some facial waxing and a basic tuck, nothing fancy. ;)

Oh, and you gotta work up to high heels gradually.

[Sunrazor]

In that case, I suggest starting with a simple evening dress, some facial waxing and a basic tuck, nothing fancy. ;)

Oh, and you gotta work up to high heels gradually.
:p What I'm really looking forward to is the little black dress.

[Lemur866]

It turns out that different states find themselves in different positions. Some states hold that a person cannot legally change their sex, so a MtF is still legally a man. Others allow legal sex changes, so the MfF is now legally a woman.

Of course, if the MtF is still legally a man, it follows that since same sex marriage is also illegal, then a MtF can legally marry a woman but not a man. Therefore the law would allow what APPEARS to be a same sex marriage, causing massive cognitive dissonance from the religious right. And if you allow legal sex changes you allow the former man to marry another man but not a woman. Except then the religious right still reels, because that "woman" is really still a man in their mind, and so cannot be allowed to marry a man.

To answer Sunrazor's question, of course there are genetic tests that can determine whether someone is genetically male or genetically female. If you have XY chromosomes you're male, if you have XX chromosomes you're female. Except some people have genetic disorders where chromosome counts don't line up so easily. There are XXY that appear phenotypically male, X0s that appear phenotypically female, XYYs that appear male.

And genetics doesn't tell the whole story. In utero exposure to the incorrect hormones can transform a genetic male embryo into a phenotypic female and vice versa. And there is the well known phenomenon of androgen insensitivity, where a genetically XY person produces testosterone, but have a genetic defect such that the testosterone receptors don't function, and that person appears phenotypically female.

And of course, some genetically XY phenotypically male people don't FEEL male, and some genetically XX phenotypically female people don't FEEL female. Maybe there's a hormonal or genetic cause, but frankly we just don't know. And of course, there are also femme men (who could be straight or gay) that are happy to be feminine males, and butch women (who could be straight or lesbian) that are happy to be masculine females.

Point being, people are what they are. Sometimes we have some idea why people are what they are...a genetic XY who's phenotypically male and sexually attracted to phenotypic females doesn't present any challenges to our preconceptions. But there are a lot of people that don't fit into our neat little boxes of how things "should be". And the question then becomes, what should our attitude be toward those people? Pressure them to fit in to what we decide they "should be"? Or let them live their own lives in their own way, even if we wouldn't choose the same for ourselves?

[Sunrazor]

I already answered the question. I'll happily answer it again if the answer wasn't clear, but start another thread, please, GD if not the Pit.
I assume you mean this sentence from your first post:
Biological sex may be impossible to change at the root, but gender is social, so a person can appear full male and still be a woman, though few wish to live that way.

The answer I'm asking you for, then, is "yes," correct?

And for the record, I have never and I will never take another Doper to the Pit. I may post there, but I'll never drag another subscriber in there. Mods, maybe, but they're tough-hided people and they can take it. So thank you for the suggestion but no, we'll hash this out here, unless directed otherwise by a moderator.

[Sunrazor]

To answer Sunrazor's question, of course there are genetic tests that can determine whether someone is genetically male or genetically female. If you have XY chromosomes you're male, if you have XX chromosomes you're female. Except some people have genetic disorders where chromosome counts don't line up so easily. There are XXY that appear phenotypically male, X0s that appear phenotypically female, XYYs that appear male.

And genetics doesn't tell the whole story. In utero exposure to the incorrect hormones can transform a genetic male embryo into a phenotypic female and vice versa. And there is the well known phenomenon of androgen insensitivity, where a genetically XY person produces testosterone, but have a genetic defect such that the testosterone receptors don't function, and that person appears phenotypically female. Thank you, this at least gives me a factual starting point with which to compare my common sense and folk wisdom.

Not that any of this is up to me, of course, since I do not sit in a legislature or on a supreme court. And one hopes those bodies make those decisions based on facts (well, at least the supreme courts, anyway) rather than popular opinion.

So, having said all that, my next question would be: Is it legal or ethical for an employer to fire someone -- in this case a very public, high-profile someone -- on the basis that he/she wasn't, in fact, what or who the employer thought he/she was? Does the public nature of the job make a difference?

[Miller]

See, this is where the whole marriage definition thing gets really blurred. Who would have ever thought, back when people started hooking up and societies started writing rules about said up-hooking, that the day would come when people could actually become a different person?

It's not like transexuality is something that just started happening within the last hundred years or so. History is full of people who, for one reason or another, didn't fit into their birth gender and adopted the appearance or mannerisms of the opposite gender. Different cultures have treated these people in different ways, 'though few of them have done so kindly. But who cares? We've cheerfully abandoned most of the cultural attitudes and expectations of our ancestors. I don't see any particular reason we should hew to tradition on this issue.

I know it's been argued on these threads that losing an arm or a leg doesn't change the human being, so losing a penis and adding a vagina shouldn't either. But I think it's apples and oranges at that point. The differences between male and female aren't just physical, they're psychic and spiritual. A one-legged woman is still a woman. But a woman with a penis, testicles (operational or not), hairy, breastless chest and masculine name isn't a woman, it's a man, and that is a different human being than what started out. Even if the person claims, "But deep down inside, I'm the same person," he/she is still a completely different person that what was presented to society.

There seems to be a contradiction here. You say that it's a spiritual/psychic difference, but then go on to define the person in purely physical terms. If gender is spiritual/psychic, then that person is indeed the same person "deep down inside," regardless of what changes they make to their exterior body, no?

Is there truly a genetic way to tell whether a specific grouping of muscle, bone and blood vessels is male or female?

For the most part, gender is determined chromosonally: males have XY chromosones, females XX. However, like all things biological, in practice it doesn't work out that way. Some people are born with one set of chromosones, but due to some circumstance during gestation, are born with the exterior genitalia of the other gender. And some people are born with three chromosones, such as XXY or other combinations.

However, I honestly don't see the relevence of genetics in a discussion of how to treat transexuals in the social sphere. If someone wants to be treated like a woman, simple courtesy dictates that you treat them like a woman.

If so, then all the surgery in the world isn't going to change that, and in that case I think we need to examine the ethics of even performing sex-change surgery.

Why?

If there isn't a way, then society needs to rewrite some rules about what a person is, because it does affect all of us.

How?

[Sunrazor]

Thanks for the input, Miller, but I think we've moved beyond my first post.

Still, I do need to address your last question, that is, how it affects us. (If it doesn't affect us, why are we even discussing it?)

Societies don't make up rules about social behavior like marriage and sexual roles for lack of anything else to do. And I've never heard of legislation being written based on the "ick" factor (although it's pretty high for some of us when it comes to changing sexual identities and marriage.) The issue of who marries whom does affect society because there are social costs -- monetary and otherwise -- that need to be considered. There are offspring to consider, matters of public vs. private persona (is it fraudulent to believe one is female, yet appear to be male?) I know, some are peeved that people like me even ask these questions, but I'm not a minority. I demand answers because I hate making decisions in the voting booth based on superstition and ancient Middle Eastern mythologies.

[Ensign Edison]

Sunrazor, there are many resources out there on this topic. Why choose a vaguely related thread on an obscure message board that only a handful of posters are even replying to for your educational source? Why not get educated before you ask questions, so you can ask questions that make sense (many of yours don't)? It's more efficient.

[Miller]

Still, I do need to address your last question, that is, how it affects us. (If it doesn't affect us, why are we even discussing it?)

Exactly. It doesn't affect us. So why are we discussing it?

Societies don't make up rules about social behavior like marriage and sexual roles for lack of anything else to do. And I've never heard of legislation being written based on the "ick" factor (although it's pretty high for some of us when it comes to changing sexual identities and marriage.)

I can think of quite a few: gay marriage bans, inter-racial marriage bans, incest bans, and bestiality bans are all laws that have no rational basis except the practice being legislated against grosses out the people writing the legislation.

The issue of who marries whom does affect society because there are social costs -- monetary and otherwise -- that need to be considered.

Which is an argument against the institution of marriage itself, but not a valid argument for restricting marriage to certain people or sets of people. If it's available to any citizens, it ought to be available to all citizens, regardless of their gender.

There are offspring to consider, matters of public vs. private persona (is it fraudulent to believe one is female, yet appear to be male?)

No, of course it's not fradulent. Why would it be?

As for children, that's a matter for the parents to worry about, not the legislature.

I know, some are peeved that people like me even ask these questions, but I'm not a minority. I demand answers because I hate making decisions in the voting booth based on superstition and ancient Middle Eastern mythologies.

An admirable attitude. I'm glad to answer whatever questions you have to the best of my ability, although my experience with the subject of transexuality is largely academic, and not first-hand.

[Sunrazor]

I can think of quite a few: gay marriage bans, inter-racial marriage bans, incest bans, and bestiality bans are all laws that have no rational basis except the practice being legislated against grosses out the people writing the legislation.Hold on there, partner, your only half right. Bestiality is not necessarily a victimless crime, and it does indicate (unlike homosexuality) antisocial behavior. Incest raises all kinds of questions about property rights, inheritence and geneology, all of which are definitely a public interest.
Which is an argument against the institution of marriage itself, but not a valid argument for restricting marriage to certain people or sets of people. If it's available to any citizens, it ought to be available to all citizens, regardless of their gender.Nice try, but no sale here, or for the overwhelming majority of people on the planet. Social institutions like marriage have evolved for a number of reasons, and all of those reasons affect society (see "incest" above.)No, of course it's not fradulent. Why would it be?I can't think of a reason, but that doesn't mean one doesn't exist. That's why I asked.As for children, that's a matter for the parents to worry about, not the legislature.How can a person who has been one sex all of his/her life and then decides he/she wants hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of surgery to become the other sex POSSIBLY have the capacity to help his/her children deal with that? How can any child possibly be equipped to deal with this? Daddy suddenly becomes ... what!? Another mommy!? What happens to all the imprinting that was done up to that point? How do you rewire a kid's brain so he/she is OK with it? Oh, yeah, it's very much the legislature's problem, especially when the unhinged offspring of one of these folks starts walking down the street with a gun.

[Ensign Edison]

Saying things like "Nice try" doesn't fit with your big-smiley-new-to-this-topic-just-wanna-learn routine very well, Sunrazor. Nor does how very, very ready you are with counter-arguments that ignore the reality of Gender Identity Disorder. You're starting to seem pretty disingenuous and agenda-pushing again.

[Miller]

Hold on there, partner, your only half right. Bestiality is not necessarily a victimless crime, and it does indicate (unlike homosexuality) antisocial behavior.

Beastiality is a victimless crime in exactly the same sense that a steak dinner is a victimless crime.

As to it indicating "antisocial behavior," I'm not sure what you mean by that. On the one hand, I suppose that anyone who chooses to engage in a sexual practice considered anathema to the majority of citizens can be labelled as engaging in "antisocial behavior," but then, you could say exactly the same thing about homosexuality. So if you are instead arguing that people who fuck dogs are more likely to engage in other (presumably violent) crimes, I'd have to ask for a cite, and further, ask why we should criminalize behavior that may or may not be a marker for more dangerous behavior further down the line. Shouldn't we be focusing on punishing people for the actual crime, and not behaviors that have no direct bearing on that crime?

Incest raises all kinds of questions about property rights, inheritence and geneology, all of which are definitely a public interest.

How so, specifically? It seems to me that incestuous marriage would resolve a lot of inheritance questions. If you have a wife and a sister, there might be questions about who gets what when you die. If your wife and sister are the same person, it seems that would streamline things considerably.

I'm not certain what you mean by "geneology." I don't particularly care for the difficulties faced by people trying to diagram their family trees. If you're refering to the dangers of debilitating genetic illness through inbreeding, that's not really a concern. It takes several generations of concerted inbreeding in a small community before serious genetic mutations begin appearing.

Nice try, but no sale here, or for the overwhelming majority of people on the planet. Social institutions like marriage have evolved for a number of reasons, and all of those reasons affect society (see "incest" above.)

What reasons are those? Are they good reasons? Should the fact that we've "always" done things one way be sufficient reason to continue doing them the same way?

I can't think of a reason, but that doesn't mean one doesn't exist. That's why I asked.

Well, there isn't one. Question asked, question answered.

How can a person who has been one sex all of his/her life and then decides he/she wants hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of surgery to become the other sex POSSIBLY have the capacity to help his/her children deal with that? How can any child possibly be equipped to deal with this? Daddy suddenly becomes ... what!? Another mommy!? What happens to all the imprinting that was done up to that point? How do you rewire a kid's brain so he/she is OK with it?

Well, let's see. Talking about it with them honestly and openly, reassuring them that the parent still loves them and will take care of them, despite the changes in their appearance. Counseling would probably be a good idea. I don't think "rewiring" is a problem. We're talking about a child, here, not a transistor radio. Certainly, there will be an amount of trauma involved for a child in this situation, just as there is for any child whose homelife is suddenly subjected to a massive change. I don't see any particular reason why this would be any more damaging to the kid than, say, a divorce or sudden death of a parent.

Of course, there is the social stigma angle. If a kid is known to be the child of a transexual, there's a good chance he'll be teased of bullied over it by their peers. But the same can be said for the child of any unpopular minority, and the blame for that is rightly assigned to the prejudices of the tormentors, and not the actions of the innocent victims.

Oh, yeah, it's very much the legislature's problem, especially when the unhinged offspring of one of these folks starts walking down the street with a gun.

That's really, really fucking stupid, highly insulting, and makes it difficult to take your claims of honest curiousity and neutrality hard to accept.

[DocCathode]

SunRazor Genetics is not a guaranteed indicator of sex. Besides ambiguous genitalia (often not ambiguous at all but indicating the wrong sex), androgen insensitivity syndrome, Kleinfelters and Turner's syndromes, in some individuals we end up with the genotype and phenotype of one sex except for the brain. My bookmark for this isn't working at the moment. But you can indeed end up with a male brain in a female body (and vice versa). Try searching on "stria terminalis".

Genetics will give you the right answer over 90% of the time but not always.

Back To The OP

Laws vary by state. Without knowing Florida law and precedents, I have no clue whether the marriage will be held to still be valid.

[Sunrazor]

Well, let's see. Talking about it with them honestly and openly, reassuring them that the parent still loves them and will take care of them, despite the changes in their appearance. Counseling would probably be a good idea. I don't think "rewiring" is a problem. We're talking about a child, here, not a transistor radio. Certainly, there will be an amount of trauma involved for a child in this situation, just as there is for any child whose homelife is suddenly subjected to a massive change. I don't see any particular reason why this would be any more damaging to the kid than, say, a divorce or sudden death of a parent.How much data is there on this? Do you have personal experience with it? I'll definitely check out DocCathode's suggested sites.

Look, I know you guys have this stuff all settled in your own minds, but please realize that most of us don't, we've just ignored it hoping it'd go away. Obviously, that's not a very smart response, but that's what most people do when the incomprehensible comes along.

The whole discussion of legality of firing, divorce, etc. is tied up in public policy and social effects. I'll forgive your "fucking stupid" remark because I understand your frustration. Please understand mine as well -- some things, in my little mind, are just intrinsically wrong, and I don't feel a strong need to justify that. I'm a college-educated 55-year-old professional with years of experience in objective observation, and it is my experience that legislatures will become involved in the intimate details of people's lives as long as the rest of us believe there is a social impact. And we do. If you are convinced that we are thus ignorant, well, the way you change that is by patiently, calmly and quietly explaining your position over and over and over to every guy like me who comes along. Like Cecil says, it's gonna' take a lot longer than you first thought.

[Fish]

Let me do some of Sunrazor's homework.

It is possible to have XY sex chromosomes and be (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XY_female_syndrome) apparently female. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Androgen_insensitivity_syndrome)

In addition to the chromosomes, gender is determined by the brain, particularly the hypothalamus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothalamus) which demonstrates marked sexually dimorphic visible differences (http://www.symposion.com/ijt/ijtc0106.htm). The hypothalamus of a man, whether he is gay or straight, looks remarkably similar; the hypothalamus of a transsexual M-t-F looks remarkably like that of a straight woman. Genetics alone are a poor marker.

[Miller]

How much data is there on this? Do you have personal experience with it? I'll definitely check out DocCathode's suggested sites.

You're the one who suggested that having a transexual parent will turn you into a homicidal maniac. Do you have any data to support that?

Please understand mine as well -- some things, in my little mind, are just intrinsically wrong, and I don't feel a strong need to justify that.

What's intrinsically wrong about transexuality?

I'm a college-educated 55-year-old professional with years of experience in objective observation, and it is my experience that legislatures will become involved in the intimate details of people's lives as long as the rest of us believe there is a social impact. And we do. If you are convinced that we are thus ignorant, well, the way you change that is by patiently, calmly and quietly explaining your position over and over and over to every guy like me who comes along. Like Cecil says, it's gonna' take a lot longer than you first thought.

The problem is, you're not actually providing any evidence for your preconceptions, which makes it difficult to argue against them. You asked, for example, if changing your sex were fradulent, but when pressed on the issue, you said you didn't know why it would be. So, why did you ask? What was your reasoning that made you think it was even an issue? You make a bizarre statement about children of transexuals wandering down the street murdering everyone they meet. Where on Earth did that idea even come from? How am I supposed to reason with you if you won't show anyone the reasoning behind your concerns? If you think some guy in Florida wanting to be treated like a woman affects your life, it's up to you to argue how that's even remotely possible. So far, you've failed to do this. I'd love nothing more than to convince you to agree with me, but I don't know how to do that when you don't have any reason not to agree with me, except that to you transexuality is wierd and different.

[Lemur866]

This is though Sunrazor, people don't just up and decide to surgically alter themselves to resemble the other gender on a whim.

If Daddy starts sex-reassignment hormone treatmens and therapy, he didn't decide to become a woman because it's the latest fad. It's possible that his decision might be surprising to people around him, but if so that's only because he kept it secret. Daddy's always wanted to be a woman, he just never told anyone. He's always thought of himself as female rather than male, he just pretended to act in a masculine way to avoid social stigma.

As for your statement that children of transexual parents are going to turn into serial killers, that's simply pathetic and is quite revealing.

[Kalhoun]

Please understand mine as well -- some things, in my little mind, are just intrinsically wrong, and I don't feel a strong need to justify that. I'm a college-educated 55-year-old professional with years of experience in objective observation, and it is my experience that legislatures will become involved in the intimate details of people's lives as long as the rest of us believe there is a social impact. And we do. If you are convinced that we are thus ignorant, well, the way you change that is by patiently, calmly and quietly explaining your position over and over and over to every guy like me who comes along. Like Cecil says, it's gonna' take a lot longer than you first thought.
Why would you consider something that someone else does to their body to be wrong? I think that's where you might want to begin examining your feelings regarding transsexuals. They aren't interested in "convincing" anyone of anything except that they have a right to identify their gender and to live in peace with that decision.

I find it odd that people would feel they have a right to call this right or wrong for anyone but themselves. This is personal business and should be beyond the reach of government or social opinion. For starters, you need to determine what harm is being done to society. I think you'll find that there is no social detriment that can be connected to sexual reassignment surgery.

[Johanna]

people don't just up and decide to surgically alter themselves to resemble the other gender on a whim.Exactly how I put it. After struggling with it my whole life, I felt dismayed and astonished that anyone could take it as just a whim. If Daddy starts sex-reassignment hormone treatmens and therapy, he didn't decide to become a woman because it's the latest fad. It's possible that his decision might be surprising to people around him, but if so that's only because he kept it secret. Daddy's always wanted to be a woman, he just never told anyone. He's always thought of himself as female rather than male, he just pretended to act in a masculine way to avoid social stigma. That is so true. I couldn't have said it better myself. Thanks to everyone who has helped out explaining this topic, I really appreciate it. We got some excellent knowledgeable allies here. You guys rock.

Speaking of acting in a masculine way--I always sucked at that--but some ladies pushed themselves to the extreme to crush their femininity. A lot of us became Marines, Navy Seals, firefighters, etc., as if the most macho professions imaginable could somehow drive it out of you. They were discharged from the Marines and wound up in frilly dresses. I'm inclined to believe the science that says it's configured in our brain structure, because nothing can get rid of it. My friend is married to one lady, who's a psychiatrist herself, who had a wife and kids, and tried everything she could for years to rid herself of it, even electroshock. All that had no effect at all, other than tormenting and maybe harming her. If you could see her now, she turned out such a beautiful woman.

[kimera]

I've never heard of a baby with an XX (female) pair being born with male genitalia, but I suppose it could be possible.

I personally know of two unlucky people who have this problem. One of them has de la Chapelle (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/dispomim.cgi?id=278850) and the other extreme Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia (http://familydoctor.org/362.xml). Both transitioned to female.