Texas state legislators in both houses have offered new legislation that would erase current language allowing transgendered people to get marriage licenses. Sen. Tommy Williams (R) and Rep. Lois Kolkhorst (R) both sponsored the bill.
**1. Should transgendered people be allowed to marry?
**
Of course.
**2. Are transgendered people really the sex they were born or have they effectively “changed” their gender? **
Don’t see how this is a relevant question, and I don’t see how it’s anyone’s business.
It’s a relevant question because the Texas state constitution, like many others that have been amended recently, specifies that marriage can only be between a man and a woman.
With the 1999 appeals court case, the judiciary took the position that gender is assigned at birth and cannot be changed.
Therefore, according to that decision, which this legislation would explicitly make the law of the state, no amount of hormone treatment and/or physical surgery could change a person’s gender, and since two people of the same sex cannot marry under the state’s constitution, transgendered people would not be able to marry in the state of Texas.
I think (but am not certain) that they mean a MtF woman cannot marry a born-that-way male.
But you raise an interesting point. What if a MtF woman wants to marry a FtM man? They’re both transgendered, but of the “acceptable” born genders, and even of the acceptable “medically induced” genders. Will Texas allow them to marry?
More to the point, what if we have a MtF person, recognized as male in Texas, marrying a born female, still female person. Haven’t we just legalized lesbian marriage? (of a sort.)
Anyone who is of legal age and not insane should be allowed to marry anyone else who fulfills those criteria if they agree. So ‘yes’ is the only morally acceptable answer.
That’s up to them to decide, and the decision shouldn’t matter.
Oh, and anyone that is against it should have the right NOT to marry a transgendered person. But they already have that right so that’s no change.
Does the Texas constitution contain language that defines marriage, beyond it just being a “union” ? Seems to me this would prevent a man and woman from forming, say, a legal practice or a corporation or (for that matter) a two-person trade union, or really any kind of legally-defined association that has some kind of “status” associate with it.
The proposed legislation is quite ignorant and cruel regardless of one’s viewpoint on same sex marriage (which I support).
I think we’ve all heard of cases of ambiguous genitalia where the parents made the assignment decision with little or no evidence to justify their decision. So what happens if the person grows up and shows tendencies opposite his/her parents arbitrary decision? Texas law would bind him/her to that decision.
Also, some more enlightened parents in such cases postpone assignment until the child is old enough the express their own preference. How would this law handle someone who’s gender wasn’t assigned at birth? Are they forever considered an un-marriageable eunuch?
If I were to hazard a guess, I think that maybe there’s a concern here that this is a slippery slope toward gay marriage. Maybe they’re worried that a gay couple will get their gender legally changed so they can circumvent the intention of the laws.
I’m interested about the implications of this though. Aside from the MtF marrying a FtM, could a MtF marry a natural born woman? Based on their born genders, it should be just fine, but the apparent result would be gay marriage, which is something they obviously intend to ban.
Anyway, to specifically answer the OP’s questions:
I don’t see how it’s meaningfully any different from the normal gay marriage discussion, in whether you have to be a “normal” couple to marry or whether any two consenting adults can marry. Personally, from a legal standpoint, I don’t see why there should be a discrimination against any pair of consent adults shouldn’t be allowed to enter into a legal contract. So, yes, they should be allowed to marry.
I do think there’s a difference between physically being male or female and the psychological and presentation of one’s gender. But, really, the physical part only matters as far as biological stuff goes (diseases, procreation, etc.). Otherwise, a person should be regarded as however they present themselves and others perceive them, whether they’ve had hormones and surgery or whatever.
#1. Yes, of course. I can think of no legitimate reason why they should not enjoy the same rights so called “normal” heterosexuals.
#2. Gender and sex are not the same thing. Sex is biological and we determine it by examining reproductive organs, hormones, and more recently chromosomes. Gender is a societal construction of what is expected from individuals based on external sexual characteristics. Gender roles are not universal and some societies have more than two genders.
So are Male to Female transgendered individuals biologically women? No. Are they of the feminine gender? Yes. Should they be treated as the feminine gender? Absolutely.
Chiming in with the “Of course” to #1. I’d say any say, unmarried adult can marry any consenting sane, unmarried adult, but “unmarried” is only in there until we can figure out a good legal framework for polygamy (and if folks want to discuss that further, it should probably be a different thread, in order not to hijack this one about transgendered marriage).
As for question #2, this is one of those metaphysical, philosophical questions that the law isn’t very good at handling. I don’t find it a particularly interesting question, frankly. It seems to me that everyone should be responsible for declaring what their gender is in appropriate circumstances, and that the only restriction we should put on it is that they be reasonably consistent (thus the pervert who wants to declare himself a woman for just long enough to wander into the women’s changing rooms and sneak a peek is out of luck; if he wants that, he needs to get his driver’s license changed, etc.) I’m happy to consider a person whatever gender they want to be, in almost all circumstances.
It seems their bill isn’t even looking at biology to determine gender – it’s application is triggered by the courts recognizing a sex change.
So, if it were a sex change operation to correct ambiguous genetalia back to the chromosomal gender… marriage denied. Probably they didn’t want to deal with the things that don’t fit in their little box, like XXY individuals.
But, makes me wonder: if someone’s birth certificate had an error of the wrong sex, they’d go get a court order to correct it. So, by this law, marriage denied, even if there was no sex change involved.
Any consenting adult should be allowed to marry. Laws like this are examples of pure bigotry and malice.
They are changing the gender of their body to match the gender of their brain.
Not really. It’s the law getting hung up on the bigotry of people who cling to xenophobia and ignorant views of biology instead of modern medical knowledge. It isn’t hard at all for the law to deal with; these people just don’t want to.