GenderLife Forum: The Information Exchange

Long ago I decided never to be surprised with the stupidity or brilliance of human beings. I fear I will have to add to my list how close-minded people can be and how hypocritical they can be. First a little tangent:
Thank you for the clarification. It would be nice if someone with ovaries giving birth was a non-event, even if the person is a man who was born biologically female. Unfortunately, this story was perfect fodder for tabloid 'news', the same people who brought us the Anna Nicole Smith story and plaster Britney Spears and Lindsay Lohan everywhere. Thomas Beattie simply chose to capitalize on exactly the type of story the tabloid press is insatiable for.
If you or Christine or I were to give birth, it would be an amazing, wonderful story. The fact that some of the women here have "fathered" children is a non-story, and so it would be nice if Thomas Beattie’s pregnancy was handled in the same way.
Are you saying that you won’t actually be a woman until you have your orchi? I know there is a huge "always been/becoming" debate. Without opening up that can of worms, I fall on the always been side of the debate. I’ve always been a woman, even when I exercised my reproductive rights. I’m not the only woman on this forum who has genetic children. Are you implying that by having children they weren’t really women? Maybe your concern shouldn’t be with your ability to get married, but should instead be that any two sane, human adults should have the right to marry each other, which would cover your rights to marry whomever you choose as well.

I also wish this couple had had their child in stealth instead of seeking publicity and money.

It sounds to me like you are denying the right of all trans people to be parents, and your quote sounds perilously close to denying gay and lesbian couples the same right, after all, how would you explain to a child why they have two daddies or two mommies instead of a mother and a father. Your quote also implies that you would deny the right to transition to anyone who has had a child prior to transitioning. Or would you prefer that anyone who has a child abdicate their rights as a parent before transitioning, severing all relationships with their children?
Please don’t try to use adoption as a “Get out of Jail Free” card. There are no laws protecting the rights of trans people to adopt, so for most trans people who want to be parents, having biological children is the only option.
Maybe your credibility is damaged not by Thomas Beattie giving birth, but by the fact that you want your rights respected and expanded while denying the rights of others.

Can anyone think of any transsexual man or woman in the media who by default represents us whether they want to are not, who would more than a small fraction of us happy.

We're so diverse that I don't believe there is any one of us who could.

Nope I can't

Are you saying that you won’t actually be a woman until you have your orchi? I know there is a huge "always been/becoming" debate. Without opening up that can of worms, I fall on the always been side of the debate. I’ve always been a woman, even when I exercised my reproductive rights. I’m not the only woman on this forum who has genetic children. Are you implying that by having children they weren’t really women? Maybe your concern shouldn’t be with your ability to get married, but should instead be that any two sane, human adults should have the right to marry each other, which would cover your rights to marry whomever you choose as well.

No I did not say that I haven't always been a woman I have been and will always be female. What I did say was for me to be legally re-gendered I have to met certain criteria under the laws in my state. I to have a son and yes I still consider myself a female, now there are people who feel the way you stated and I do feel that's wrong. My point with this man is that he still has his female reproductive organs and under any legal definition he still is a female as long as he can carry and give birth to a child. Look up any law concerning having your gender changed and it requires you to basically be sterilized and incapable of sirring or carrying a child in you birth sex.

The laws for FTMs are different. Top surgery can be enough to get the M on legal documents, if the surgeon writes the correct letter (and some are willing to). For MTFs, vaginoplasty is needed.

Basically, MTFs have to give up their capacity to reproduce in order to be legally fully female. FTMs don't have to in order to be legally fully male.

Unfair? Maybe. But the cost of phalloplasty is prohibitively expensive, and more so in countries where women only earn about 70% of what men earn for doing the same job. And the result is not really functional.

Many FTMs eventually undergo hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (removal of the uterus and both ovaries), but that is also an expensive surgery and not always required to get the surgeon letter stating that SRS has been completed.

PS: I'm talking about my province in Canada. It can be different in other provinces, and (of course) in other countries.

In Australia Thomas would not be able to have his Birth Certificate, Passport, License ect ect changed from Female to Male without proof of his Medical gender re-assignment surgery... or if there was a medical reason he could not have that surgery proof of that.

Sure we must be recognised as being the gender we present as, but officially and legally we require GRS.

Yes, here it's the same, but that's the loophole: to change your BC and other documents you need a letter from a surgeon stating that "sex reassignment surgery" has been effected.

For us, in many places, an orchiectomy is sufficient. For FTMs, a bilateral mastectomy can be sufficient. It's all in how the surgeon writes the letter.

Given that, except in backwards places like Oklahoma and Texas, legal sex is determined by the genitals present, any doctor who signs a letter based on orchiectomy or bilateral mastectomy alone is risking prosecution for providing a false affidavit.

I am glad to see that your comments were directed at Thomas Beattie's legal gender, and not his actual gender. It didn't read that way to me at first. I am sorry for any confusion I caused.

That may be so, but in many places the requirement to change the gender marker states that only "a surgeon letter stating that completion of sex reassignment surgery has taken place" is needed, and nowhere in the documents is stated exactly what is meant by "sex reassignment surgery." I only know of Kansas spelling it out.

Thus, a surgeon could easily succeed even if s/he were prosecuted.

Also, most times the surgeon is in a different country, or province (or state, department, etc.) from the one where the patient makes the legal changes.