Maybe someone can link to the pit thread from awhile ago. While I in some ways agree with Tripolar (my ideal situation would be removing government from marriage altogether), it’s obnoxious to turn every thread involving marriage rights into a hijack about whether marriage is the government’s business or not–it’d be like entering every thread about whether something is moral to argue about whether the idea of morality is meaningful. I was persuaded not to do this anymore, and I think it’s a good idea for others not to pursue this interesting tangent in other threads.
It looks to me like that’s what the parents in this particular article did. They allowed their child to act in ways that didn’t conform to the male gender role, and just assumed the kid was a boy who liked “girl things” more. It was the child who kept insisting “I’m not a boy, I’m a girl”. I’m not sure I believe hormone therapy should start until someone is old enough to consent to a medical procedure, but at the same time, blocking testosterone doesn’t seem to be the worst way to go, since you can always start again on that later. The only person who is saying anything about genital surgery is the child.
Hm, you’re right, it is off topic, so I won’t comment on it from now on.
I think the issue of allowing young children to start the medical transition process is a little off topic too, but the thought that someone can know their biological sex isn’t “right” for them from a very young age is relevant to the discussion, so hopefully this side conversation isn’t bothering anyone.
TriPolar, thanks for the clarification. We’re in agreement then.
So basically you want the government to “get out of the marriage business” by creating a substitute that identical to marriage in all but name? :dubious:
Yes, but as it is “marriage” is a civil status which is already on the books and carries multiple rights and privileges across multiple spheres, which a couple automatically access as soon as the license is filed. If you reduce it to pure contract law, a marriage could require a 50-page document, and naturally enough there will be efforts to tweak and customize endlessly, to the point where two couples, even if married in the same venue on the same day could have significant differences. If both couples eventually file for divorce, somebody is going to have to parse the individual contracts. As it is, a one-size-fits-all generic “marriage” that applies to all the licenced unions in a particular venue greatly simplifies cases where courts get involved, which is pretty much inevitable if the marriage ends in divorce or death, both of which involve transfers of property. With standard marriages, this can be a rubber-stamp, done in a few minutes. With a customized contract that some government lawyer must wade through? Yikes, even if there are no disputes, and woe betide the lawyer who has to arbitrate some 1000-page ultracontract formed between two people are completely anal and completely insane and completely determined to hurt the other, no matter what.
Some states recognize a marriage variant called “covenant marriage”. I can vaguely imagine four or five marriage flavours, to be chosen at the time of of filing the license, but more than that, or allowing the full customization of letting people draw up their own contracts… that’s death, right there, or at least an end to marriage as we know it and I guess the anti-ssm people will get their “it’s an attack on marriage!” claims vindicated after all.
Ok, well I don’t want to go off on a tangent. I just think marriage laws cause these questions to arise, and they don’t have to exist. So my point for this thread would be that there aren’t any other reasons to have an official ‘sex’, and I don’t consider marriage to be a very good one.
Out of curiosity, is it against the law for a competent adult to knowingly enter the bathroom of the opposite sex? Other than sex, situations in which there’s semipublic nakedness can lead to strong feelings based on the gender of the other people involved.
In certain McDonalds, it can get the crap kicked out of you.
I don’t know what specific laws may apply, but the bathroom issue was used as part of the campaign against the ERA. I didn’t personally consider it a much of a point then, or now in this context. I understand that people have strong feelings about this whole subject though. And in a democracy, strong feelings tends to deliver the votes, so I don’t expect things to change quickly, if at all.
To
[quote]
(http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/08/19/sunday/main788935.shtml)Kinky Friedman, iconic member of Kinky Friedman and the Texas Jewboys, when he addressed the question of same sex marriage during his gubernatural campaign, “I support gay marriage. I believe they have a right to be as miserable as the rest of us.”
I don’t think it’s a stretch that a good Texan like Kinky would happily substitute “transgendered” for “gay” in the above quote. 
Yes, in most places it is against the law for a person to enter a bathroom designated specifically as being for the opposite sex.
What do I care what sex someone is? Why do I need some measure supposably based on chromosomes (which of course is rarely actually verified- there are all kinds of ways chromosomes can vary)? The chromosomes of strangers don’t involve me one way or the other.
If you can’t control yourself around other people, that’s your problem.
FWIW, I’ve bever been naked or seen anyone in any state of nakedness in a women’s restroom. Anything I do that would be worse to do around men than women happens behind closed door.
The rules of statutory construction do matter, Stoid. While I admit that observance of them cannot be claimed in every single solitary case, the exceptions are quite rare. It’s much more often the case that individuals, particularly those invested heavily in a particular outcome, refuse to see where the rules inevitably take them.
Why shouldn’t they? 
WTF?
Are you picking a ridiculous nit, or are you saying that you’ve neither got objections to, nor have patience with objections to, men wandering into women’s restrooms and vice versa? If it’s the latter, elaborate; if it’s the former, please suggest an alternate phrasing for the rationale behind such objections.
I’ve known 3 MtF transgenders and 1 FtM, and they all are much happier in their new and proper sex than in their old one. One of them is, I think, married to a friend of mine; they live with his/her former wife. Obviously not in Texas. They’ve adopted a kid also. So, it happens in some places, and it works.
That nice actual but not official lesbian couple should flaunt it in Rick’s face. The idea of them able to get married makes me smile.
Yes, those rules are needed – partly for cases where legislators accidentally overlook something, and partly for cases where they go for overkill, and try to ban anything that resembles marriage and so draft a law that (on its face) bans marriage as well.
In an ideal world, those legislators would not want to ban marriages that don’t fit their religious ideas of marriage. In a slightly less ideal world, they would draft laws that said exactly what they meant, and did not require rules of statutory interpretation to make sense of the laws.
- Absolutely.
- Absolutely irrelevant.
Of course. It’s their lives / relationships and if they want to screw them up, it’s their choice!
Unless you’re talking the ‘religious union’ kind of marriage – in which case it’s all a matter of fairytales and Flying Spaghetti monsters – it’s immaterial.
Transgender people are male / female in heart and mind, irrespective of their physical bodies. Just as a man made eunuch through accident is still a man, so too is a (e.g.) TG girl a female depsite having a penis; if not, in fact, having undergone full SRS.
Intelligent, open-minded people understand the obviousness of these facts. This might be why there is still conjecture surrounding such non issues in conservative Christian America…
Amen.
Odesio You left out the brain. Research shows the stria terminalis is gendered. There is indeed such a thing as male and female brains.
RE Chromosomes
I once knew a guy with Kleinfelter’s syndrome. This means he was XXY. Legally he was male.
Re Texas
I say this as a matter of fact. Texas has a long history of doing its best to prevent the transgendered from marrying.
Back To The OP
If two non related adults want to marry, I don’t see what their legal sex has to do with it.