You're absolutely right, Monica. What is a woman, anyway?

Very interesting and informative, Monica. I confess to being one who has not given the amount of in-depth attention to such aspects of trangender issues that I should.

When I went to look up the text of the proposed California constitutional amendment initiative that would nullify the recent California Supreme Court's decision, I ran across what appears to have been an earlier measure which apparently has not garnered enough signatures (if someone from California can enlighten me more on this I would appreciate it). It went far beyond a simple declaration about marriage being restricted to just one man and one woman, and contained the following:

"A man is an adult male human being who possesses at least one inherited Y chromosome, and a woman is an adult female human being who does not possess an inherited Y chromosome."

Would you care to comment on the problems that would have been posed by that particular definition, which seems to be a bit different from how you have described the issue?

They made a weak attempt to define man and woman. The question you should ask California, "How did they determine who had a Y chromosome and who didn't?" To do that, you have to get a test, which cost between $600 to $900. Were they charging those applying for a marriage certificate this cost for the test? Did the state pay for it? What would happen if both had XY chromosome, but one having AIS and a female body? An AIS lesbian could have legally gotten married to an XX female in California before the court decision. It's something to think about.

I've got a question for you: Assuming you can, would you like/desire the creation of such definitions? How do you think this answer relates to this contribution?

Anyways, interesting read.

Lucrece,
It doesn't matter if there is definitions or not. There will always be someone who will get screwed no matter which way it goes.

Folks,
This question is the very Pandora's box of the T community, and I cringe at the thought of every case, every new law, every chance that the Supreme Court, Congress, or state legislatures might find themselves addressing that question. If it comes to that, we're not going to like the answer.

Indeed, our own community can't possibly agree on the answer for this. The HBS fanatics will have their definition, as will people at every point in transition, and intersexed people will have quite another point of view. Agreement and compromise won't be possible, and the T POV, even if agreed to, won't be listened to by those deciding, anyway. But they will listen to the Religious Reich, you reckon?

I don't want this subject even breached or addressed by any body of government, thank you very much. Let's not forward this one to our Congressmen, shall we?

The only reason for ever codifying gender in the first place was to discriminate against women. Why can't we all be "comrades" or something? I would say no laws whatsoever that have distinguishing gender in them. No advantage or disadvantage to either gender. Just eliminate them all.

"A man is an adult male human being who possesses at least one inherited Y chromosome, and a woman is an adult female human being who does not possess an inherited Y chromosome."

And what about a lady who has a wonderful antique Y chromosome left to her by her late aunt Mildred?

Waka waka waka!

Monica, thank you for the very informative links included in this most complex issue. It's clear not only the definitions listed in our man-made dictionaries would confuse many 'voters' on the marriage issue, but the science is certainly too much for those who read one book (the Bible) to derive their simplistic view of sexuality and marriage.

Don Sherfick wrote:

"A man is an adult male human being who possesses at least one inherited Y chromosome, and a woman is an adult female human being who does not possess an inherited Y chromosome."

Would you care to comment on the problems that would have been posed by that particular definition, which seems to be a bit different from how you have described the issue?

Depends what you mean by problems. Let's assume you want the following properties:

1. Everyone is either M or F, no-one is neither.
2. Everyone is M or F, but not both simultaneously
3. Everyone is permanently M or permanently F, it can't change.
4. M people can't get pregnant, and F people can't impregnate
5. You don't need a fully equipped laboratory to tell one M person from the majority of F people, or the reverse. That is, men look male, women look female.

No definition that has all these properties exists, but perhaps one that satisfies most will be acceptable.

Property 1 is preserved, providing you drop "male person" and "female person" and just say "person". If you don't drop the "male" or "female" bit then you violate the first property, as some people's appearance is ambiguous, and chromosomes don't match appearance in others - assuming you go by birth certificates. Which in some countries have an option for "X", neither M nor F (e.g Australia, see the Alex Macfalane case).

Property 2 is preserved - that's one out of 5.

Property 3 is violated by those who are 46xx/47xxy mosaics, with a low proportion of 47xxy. During cell turnover, 47xxy is selected against, so in later life, the person may be genetically entirely 46xx.

Property 4 is hopelessly compromised. There are people with defective SrY complexes who are 46xy but have become pregnant, and those with 46xx chromosomes but a translocated SrY complex who have become biological fathers. Worse, SrY isn't the only complex that can cause masculinisation, there are 3, so a test for SrY doesn't work either. Those women with Swyer syndrome can become surrogate mothers, they have all the normal female reproductive system bar the ovaries. They are 46xy and have streak (atrophied) male gonads.

Property 5 is also completely compromised. Apart from those who have transitioned, there are many women with 46xy chromosomes and feminising Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, and many men with 46xx chromosomes and masculinising Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia. Not forgetting those born with other Intersex conditions (or victims of botched genital surgery such as infant circumcision) who have been surgically "corrected" at age 1 year without their knowledge or consent. Many don't even know this happened to them. Then there are those with 5ARD who look female at birth, but masculinise at puberty. There are other similar conditions too, 17BHDD being the most common. So you can't go by appearances, or even medical records. A simple, cheap test for presence of SrY will give a false positive for the presence of a Y chromosome if it's translocated. A single buccal smear or blood test and karyotype costing thousands won't detect mosaicism, you need multiple samples from different parts of the body, maybe a hundred thousand's worth.

Note I haven't even mentioned Transsexuality yet, just Intersex.

Compare with the Australian Family Court ruling in Re Kevin:

At paragraph [270]: ‘But I am satisfied that the evidence now is inconsistent with the distinction formerly drawn between biological factors, meaning genitals, chromosomes and gonads, and merely "psychological factors", and on this basis distinguishing between cases of inter-sex (incongruities among biological factors) and transsexualism (incongruities between biology and psychology)’.

At paragraph [272]: ‘In my view the evidence demonstrates (at least on the balance of probabilities) that the characteristics of transsexuals are as much “biological” as those of people thought of as inter-sex’.

At paragraph [136]: ‘I agree with Ms Wallbank that in the present context the word "man" should be given its ordinary contemporary meaning. In determining that meaning, it is relevant to have regard to many things that were the subject of evidence and submissions. They include the context of the legislation, the body of case law on the meaning of "man" and similar words, the purpose of the legislation, and the current legal, social and medical environment. These matters are considered in the course of the judgment. I believe that this approach is in accordance with common sense, principles of statutory interpretation, and with all or virtually all of the authorities in which the issue of sexual identity has arisen. As Professor Gooren and a colleague put it:-

“There should be no escape for medical and legal authorities that these definitions ought to be corrected and updated when new information becomes available, particularly when our outdated definitions bring suffering to some of our fellow human beings”.

So you look at the totality, add a dollop of common sense, and in difficult cases, some simple common humanity. That way, all but property 3 is preserved.

Property 1 can be violated at the person's specific request, assuming a medical condition that justifies it.

Excellent post Monica! I've often questioned common definitions of man and woman. Ultimately, I can't think of a single reason for governmental and societal identification of the entire population as either one or the other. This qualifies as gender tyranny in my book.

Marriage certificates could say person 1 and 2 (and 3... but maybe I shouldn't go there now, I'm sure I've caused enough trouble already). A person's driver's license or passport only needs their name, address and picture.

Zoe,
It all boils down to the fact that there is no legal definition for "man" or "woman," yet discrimination against same-sex couples hinge on those two words. How can discrimination remain in place if it is based on vague terminology? And, if anyone tries to nail down one way to define the words, the end result will be that they will discriminate against people they were not intending to target and create loopholes for those they were trying to target. Basically, this is a form of discrimination that the person behind the license counter gets to decide on.

I have the "F" on my driver's license, so if I used that for identification, I could marry a man in Georgia. If I showed the "M" on my birth certificate, I could marry a woman. If I was thrown in jail, the "F" wouldn't do me a damn bit of good. In some podunk parts of the country, even post-ops are thrown in the jail's male population. Without definitions, I can be screwed in some situations. With definitions, I won't be any less screwed.

Note that I've left aside the question of morality, and whether stopping two people who love each other from marrying is justifiable. There's no consideration of "human rights", or even humanity, merely legal definitions.

Note also that tossing a coin, and having immutable birth certificates or immigration records saying M or F, depending on heads or tails, preserves three of the properties, not just one. That means that the proposed definition is really bad, unless you don't mind oppressing minorities in order to satisfy all 5 conditions for most people.

As for me... in Australia, should anything happen to my partner, I could only marry a man. That's because same-sex marriage is illegal here. In the UK, where I was born, I could only marry another woman. That's because same-sex marriage is illegal there. They use different definitions, and who I could marry in the US would depend on the state, and sometimes, the county. In Malta, I couldn't marry anyone, as I'd be considered neither M nor F.

Note also that although I'm married - to another woman - this counts as a legally meaningless "same sex partnership" for such matters as inheritance, superannuation, social security, etc. So a 28 year marriage, certificate and all, has less legal effect than a 2 week old de-facto relationship between opposite sexes. We still can't divorce without showing an irreconcilable breakdown of the relationship, something self-evidently false. It wouldn't be so bad if we were lesbian, but transition usually extracts some kind of price. There's more to marriage than sex though. Parenthood. Friendship. Love. 3 out of 4 ain't bad.

Oddly enough, not many prospective boyfriends can deal with the situation.

I would say that if we continue to insist on a binary definition of gender as a dichotomy, there will continue to be profound debates as evidenced in this article, and the comments to it. The determination of one's gender is made by visual evidence without regard to anything else that contributes to that child's sense of maleness or femaleness. There very may well be a test that could determine shortly after birth if that child is gender variant or cisgender, and whether or not that child is heterosexual or homosexual. Such tests would go far to remove these issues from the moral debate swirling around who we are. We are who we are, and we love who we love, and that should settle the issue.
These same questions were raised during the discussion of anti-miscegenation laws. How were different races defined? At late as 2000, there were bans on interracial dating on the campus of Bob Jones University.
These detested anti-miscegenation laws were unjust and immoral, just as the anti same-sex marriage amendments enshrine bigotry and hatred into state constitutions.
We in Colorado lost the votes on same-sex unions because the LBGT community was fragmented in its efforts to get out the vote. Too many groups spoke in whispers, and none were heard, while well-heeled and powerful voices shouted their messages from the roof tops, and fear and hatred won. California can learn from our mistake, and they have to organize into a cohesive LGBT community to fight the anti-same sex marriage amendment that will be on the ballot in November. There is a window of opportunity for same-sex couples to marry in California, and I'm hoping people who are in committed relationships from all over the country will take advantage of this. People who have been in long-term committed loving relationships who tell their stories can do much to demonstrate the inequity of the marriage amendment.

They made a weak attempt to define man and woman. The question you should ask California, "How did they determine who had a Y chromosome and who didn't?" To do that, you have to get a test, which cost between $600 to $900. Were they charging those applying for a marriage certificate this cost for the test? Did the state pay for it? What would happen if both had XY chromosome, but one having AIS and a female body? An AIS lesbian could have legally gotten married to an XX female in California before the court decision. It's something to think about.

Oh good grief! This was never the law in California. It is a rather silly attempt to amend the state constitution to include such a law. The answer is simple. First, it would prevent people with complete AIS (there are degrees) from marrying a man. Presumably, they could marry a lesbian. This law never existed in California, and hopefully never will.

I have the "F" on my driver's license, so if I used that for identification, I could marry a man in Georgia. If I showed the "M" on my birth certificate, I could marry a woman. If I was thrown in jail, the "F" wouldn't do me a damn bit of good. In some podunk parts of the country, even post-ops are thrown in the jail's male population. Without definitions, I can be screwed in some situations. With definitions, I won't be any less screwed.

Funny...actually, you could get an invalid marriage license by committing fraud if you wish to marry a man. You can legally marry a woman, because you are legally, a male. If you go to jail, you will be held in a male facility aince you are a male.

If I want to marry a man, I can legally do so. And in about 10 days, I can legally marry a woman in California. I cannot legally marry a woman in the other states (Kansas and Texas are iffy). If I were arrested, I would be put in the women's section.

It's really very simple. I have a vagina. That removes any question in most jurisdictions.

The only people who really raise this sort of question are those who identify as transgender. The rest of us have a pretty solid concept of who is a man, and who is a woman. Ironically, the proposed amendment in California is far preferable to something more specific, like the proposed one based on chromosomes. The one on the ballot will, at least, not automaticallly affect post-ops and women with complete AIS. While I oppose it, it will only ban same-sex marriage.

I have the "F" on my driver's license, so if I used that for identification, I could marry a man in Georgia. If I showed the "M" on my birth certificate, I could marry a woman. If I was thrown in jail, the "F" wouldn't do me a damn bit of good. In some podunk parts of the country, even post-ops are thrown in the jail's male population. Without definitions, I can be screwed in some situations. With definitions, I won't be any less screwed.

Funny...actually, you could get an invalid marriage license by committing fraud if you wish to marry a man. You can legally marry a woman, because you are legally, a male. If you go to jail, you will be held in a male facility aince you are a male.

If I want to marry a man, I can legally do so. And in about 10 days, I can legally marry a woman in California. I cannot legally marry a woman in the other states (Kansas and Texas are iffy). If I were arrested, I would be put in the women's section.

It's really very simple. I have a vagina. That removes any question in most jurisdictions.

The only people who really raise this sort of question are those who identify as transgender. The rest of us have a pretty solid concept of who is a man, and who is a woman. Ironically, the proposed amendment in California is far preferable to something more specific, like the proposed one based on chromosomes. The one on the ballot will, at least, not automaticallly affect post-ops and women with complete AIS. While I oppose it, it will only ban same-sex marriage.

Very interesting argument, Monica. Good post. I see PageOneQ picked up the story too.

However, it can also be changed in most of those states when a trans woman gets an orchiectomy, or the trans man gets top surgery or a hysterectomy. If the letter is worded correctly, the state will more than likely change the birth certificate.

This is, quite frankly, legally fraud. The doctor signing the letter, and the person presenting it to the court would be subject to prosecution for perjury. This is similar to someone using a driver's license with the sex marker changed to facilitate RLT to obtain a marriage license. It can be done, but that does not make it legal. Actually doing this can result in fines or jail time. And it can also result in a major backlash that might even result in laws being changed to prevent anyone from changing their birth certificates.

JJ, I don't plan on ever getting married in any place but California, so I don't plan on committing a fraud.

I don't plan on ever getting married in any place but California, so I don't plan on committing a fraud.

Well, that is something we can all be thankful for. Actually, just that sort of thing was pushed by a certain transgender lawyer in Houston. It also resulted in a serious backlash that actually hurt HBS people in Houston.

I suggest you talk with a lawyer to get a true legal opinion on whether an orchie is the same as SRS, in a legal sense. I'll believe a legal opinion from a lawyer first.

I suggest you talk with a lawyer to get a true legal opinion on whether an orchie is the same as SRS, in a legal sense. I'll believe a legal opinion from a lawyer first.

ROTFL! A lawyer's opinion is not needed when the law is clear. Again, if anyone attempts such an act they are risking being prosecuted for fraud. Otherwise, why would the letter have to be "worded correctly?" Why not just state, clearly, that the person has only had an orchidectomy? Because this is fraud. And of course, why would anyone wish to lie anyway? If you want to keep your penis (or your vagina), why would one feel the need to lie and claim to be something one is clearly not? Oh well, I guess I just don't understand the transgender mindset.

According to the State Department employee who accepted to my application for a passport in Los Angeles, an orchie is irreversible genital surgery as defined by the rules, and as such, allowed me to get my passport with the correct gender marker. Different employees of the same agencies have differing opinions, and there is no definitive policy concerning this. It depends on the luck of the draw, and this could be a good thing. I'm not sure we want a firm definitive decision....
My advice to apply for the passport came from a man who was a judge. I had to provide considerable medical evidence from many doctors to get the passport, but I got it.

It's a great discussion Monica and something I think about everytime I think of marriage. Being that I am a trasman and identify gay, marriage is a tricky issue legally for me.

Monica,

I would say that this is the most heart felt post I have seen on Bilerico. My first thoughts where to send you an email off line, but the beauty of your post demands public applause, Clap,(repeat in mega- fashion, clap!

I know you and I do not share similar perspectives and oft are at difficult conflicting demeanor. Yet, what you have written is probably the clearest definition presented that the common person, let alone gay could understand. Thanks.

As you may have observed, I have removed myself, and dropped out. I am breaking my silence as I felt this was worth crediting and publicly saying that your article is worth the attention of all of the governmental community. Understand that several things came to my attention , mostly from contacts from the past, that have caused me to withdraw from public action. Never the less your comments deserve my public recognition and mot simply a personal email. Again, thanks!

Regarding some of your metrics, I have statistics more recent that show greater frequency,i.e. UCLA Med Resch 2006 study on gender/intersex. Regardless, the issues of what the medical and legal definitions of male and female are sketchy at best. Upon legal definition and the politics, social re-engineering, and finally esoteric activity, the world for transsexuals is, I think, going to be less secure. No question that the GLBt movement will drive those who are Transsexual under ground, or into lives of darkness. Hence, the feedback I had as to the direction I was pointing reference. We are in very trying times orchestrated and led by very high powers. I am again dropping out. Thanks!

According to the State Department employee who accepted to my application for a passport in Los Angeles, an orchie is irreversible genital surgery as defined by the rules, and as such, allowed me to get my passport with the correct gender marker. Different employees of the same agencies have differing opinions, and there is no definitive policy concerning this. It depends on the luck of the draw, and this could be a good thing. I'm not sure we want a firm definitive decision.... My advice to apply for the passport came from a man who was a judge. I had to provide considerable medical evidence from many doctors to get the passport, but I got it.

Interesting... I suppose it could be said that you got lucky. I don't know that the employee made a "correct" interpretation of the rules and I suspect that you found a worker willing to bend the rules.

But what if you get found out? I don't know what purpose you got the passport for, but if are found to actually still be a male, it could cause problems. Of oourse that would depend on circumtances. And the State Department does allows people to get temporary passports for the purpose of traveling out of the country to have sex affirmation surgery.

But I have to disagree. It is not a gender marker. It is a sex marker. It is a legal statement concerning your physical sex, not your gender. And if you have a penis and it says you are female, it is not, in my opinion, correct.

Which raises a very interesting question. It is one thing to change sex markers on some documentation to allow people to complete the real life test, but why do some seem to wish to deceive people. I mean, why is it that those who have no desire to change their sex want to change the sex markers on their birth certificates? Why claim something you have no right to?

Definitions, or lack there of, for "man" and "woman" is probably the one thing that binds all gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender AND straight people. It is a human issue. The problem is that the knowledge about how diverse nature is has not been spread around. The statement, "1 in every 100 births in the world are people whose bodies differ from standard male or female in one form or another," is one that needs to be made more public. that's 60 million human.

On the opposite side of the coin is the "hate factor." Knowing that there are no legal definitions for man and woman can cause some of the hateful people to work to define them in the worse possible way. We have to temper our desire to educate with caution and vigilance. If there is any attempt to define the words, we have to fight it like we fight anti-LGBT legislation. Until the human race is ready to accept the diversity of creation, we have to watch out for these attempts to ruin the lives we already have.

Definitions, or lack there of, for "man" and "woman" is probably the one thing that binds all gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender AND straight people. It is a human issue. The problem is that the knowledge about how diverse nature is has not been spread around. The statement, "1 in every 100 births in the world are people whose bodies differ from standard male or female in one form or another," is one that needs to be made more public. that's 60 million human.

Actually, most people, including most gays, lesbians and bisexuals, as well as straight people, have no problem defining man and woman. It is not an issue, even with regards to same-sex marriages. If you have a penis, you are a man; and if you have a vagina, you are a woman. It only is an issue for those who wish to make it an issue. Even intersex is not a significant issue, as in most cases it is not as severe as Helms implies. You can make "intersex" as public as you want, and it will lead to a big yawn.

But the issue of those who would define things as naroowly as possible is an issue. And the surest thing that will lead to that happening is what has already brought it about. As long as the transgender activists try to spread their confusion, things will get worse. Ironically, the more this issue is "fought," the more it will be an issue. Helm's rhetoric threatens those who have corrected their bodies and actually will make no difference to those who wish to retain their birth sex and only claim to be something else.

Wow, everybody getting so cerebral. Stoopid liberal elitists!

It's really simple folks: Girls rule, boys drool.

If you rule and drool, you're queer.

Everybody poops.

Only those people who poop can marry other people who poop.

Legislation We Can Believe In!

We have ISNA who have been in existence for at least 2 decades, have had hundreds of doctors and medical professionals, have had several decades of research about all the variations of humans and have proven that a penis and a vagina are not the one and only way to determine what is a man and a woman . . . and we have JustJennifer. I would think the credibility is in favor of ISNA.

And, many, many trans people have gotten their birth certificates legally changed with an orchie or top surgery in this country. If it was not legal, then one would think some of the states would have said something. We have all those people who have legally gotten their birth certificates changes, and the other side, we have JustJennifer. I rest my case.

I'm going to make an observation here. If there is only two ways to determine sex in the world, then I guess that means there are only two hair colors in the world. This must mean there are only two eye colors, two skin colors, two height, two weights, two diseases people can contract, two nose sizes, two voices in a chores, two intelligence levels and two ages we live to.

If nature can have a variety of ways to make people different in all those other things and hundreds of other biological features, then why would anyone even think that nature would only make just two ways to determine biological sex? It's as if people want to trade scientific logic and proof for a Biblical answer. It didn't work with evolution, especially here with the Cobb County School Board. "Mother Nature can think beyond binaries, Human Nature cannot." We constantly get proof of that all the time.

JJ wrote:

If you have a penis, you are a man; and if you have a vagina, you are a woman.

And if you have both, from Persistant Mullerian Duct Syndrome? Or neither, because of a congenital condition, surgery, or accident?
And is a neo-vagina a vagina or merely a "pouch", as the Gay judge Lord Justice Sir Robert Ormrod ruled not so long ago in the notorious Corbett vs Corbett decision?

When such a cavity has been constructed in a male, the difference between sexual intercourse using it, and anal or intra-crural intercourse is, in my judgment, to be measured in centimetres.

He was talking about you there, Jennifer. And everyone else who had had a (in his words) "'so called' sex-change operation" unless they had one of a select few Intersex conditions. You're not a woman, you're a mutilated gay man. At least you were in the UK until 5 years ago, and still are in Kansas, Florida, some counties (but not others) in Texas, and depending on who you surgeon was, you may or may not be in Illinois. I'm in the same situation: being post-op is irrelevant to the legal definition of sex in the UK. Thank the TGs and FtoMs for that one. I really should be on your side in your anti-TG sentiments, but I can't be. Both my sense of morality and my interpretation of the scientific evidence don't allow me to be.

As for me, I believe that we should bite the bullet, and insist on unambiguous legal definitions of male and female if the whole stupid cruelty of "marriage is between a man and a woman" is to continue. Either this will result in a relatively humane definition, or an obviously insane one. Either way, we win, as it is purely because few people know just how utterly brain-dead the legal situation is in the US and elsewhere that we have so much insecurity. The more "conservative" and Dominionist the definition is, the more obviously same-sex marriages will happen in those jurisdictions, to the great discomfort of the Fundies, and the mockery of them by everyone else.

The experience in Australia is that a relatively human (not flawless) definition by the Australian Family Court with respect to marriage has acted as a wedge to enable rights in areas such as passports and inheritance. The battles are still being fought, but we have had only one loss (on technical constitutional grounds to do with Federal powers over states granted by signing foreign treaties) in the several court battles since then.

I'll quote how sex is determined in Australia:

[T]he relevant matters include, in my opinion, the person’s biological and physical characteristics at birth, including gonads, genitals and chromosomes); the person’s life experiences, including the sex in which he or she is brought up and the person’s attitude to it; the person’s self-perception as a man or woman; the extent to which the person has functioned in society as a man or woman; any hormonal, surgical or other medical sex reassignment treatments the person has undergone, and the consequences of such treatment; and the person’s biological, psychological and physical characteristics at the time of the marriage, including (if they can be identified) any biological features of the person’s brain that are associated with a particular sex. It is clear from the Australian authorities that post-operative transsexuals will normally be members of their reassigned sex”

From Transsexualism and the case for correction of Birth Records in Victoria (DOC format).

Someone who is non-op, but who has lived for some times in a fulltime target gender role, is accepted by their societal millieu as a member of their target gender, and who is psychologically of that gender, would probably be classed as their target gender if they can make a case as to why they haven't had surgery (expense, fear, medical risk), and certainly would be if the surgery was merely not as complete as it might have been. That last has been tested, but not the first.

Yes, there are risks to existing marriages by requiring an unambiguous definition. But really, we have to ask ourselves, how safe are those anyway under the current situation? And there's another matter: such a definition is required in order to expose the inconsistencies and biological nonsense in current same-sex-marriage prohibition. It is exactly analogous to the situation regarding the anti-miscegenation laws, when the convoluted, unworkable and obviously irrational definitions of "race" led to the whole thing being laughed at, even by people who were racist at heart.

We should be trumpeting to the four winds every obviously lesbian or gay marriage in the heart of the Bible belt, ones that are kosher by the irrational rules of who is "male" and who is "female" when TS or IS is involved. We are one of the greatest arguments against same-sex marriage prohibition, or would be if the GLB without the T faction would let us be.

There is a darker side too. For their are groups, not large, but influential, the Raymondite (Lez)RadFems and the Barneyesque Rich White (Gay)Males, who would be willing to gain same-sex marriage at the cost of prohibiting marriage altogether for those who are TS or IS. If good definitions are set in law before this happens, we'll be protected. Let us not be blindsided again as we were by ENDA. The question is not "are we being paranoid", but "are we being paranoid enough".

We have ISNA who have been in existence for at least 2 decades, have had hundreds of doctors and medical professionals, have had several decades of research about all the variations of humans and have proven that a penis and a vagina are not the one and only way to determine what is a man and a woman . . . and we have JustJennifer. I would think the credibility is in favor of ISNA.

Well, that is an oddly contradictory statement. I mean, ISNA has mostly worked to politicize the issue of intersex, and not to actually clarify the issue. I do suppose anyone who wishes to muddy the waters, as Helms clearly does. would cite them. Personally, I prefer OII. http://www.intersexualite.org/

As to the research by experts, it hardly supports Helms' position.

And, many, many trans people have gotten their birth certificates legally changed with an orchie or top surgery in this country. If it was not legal, then one would think some of the states would have said something. We have all those people who have legally gotten their birth certificates changes, and the other side, we have JustJennifer. I rest my case.

ROTFL! Well, let's see. How many would that be? Does Helms have any actual figures, or is this just one of those silly "Well, there are many, many...." assertions that actually means "Well, I heard about someone who said that they knew someone, who was told by someone about someone's who has a cousin who knew someone who did this." So, we have the clear statement of the law, and we have Helms' vague assertion. When one does get caught, we will certainly know about it. And the assertion, by Helms, that such changes are legal is without any value. One might successfully have the change made, but that does not mean it is legal. Of course, unless the person actually uses that birth certificate to do something forbidden, like get a marriage to a member of the same sex, they may not get caught.

Again, I have to ask, why would one wish to do this? What is the purpose? What do they gain from lying?

This comment has been moderated for a TOS violation.

We want to know your opinion on this issue! All comments from unregistered users are held for moderation. While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.

If you would like to let the editorial team know about a possible policy violation, please use the Contact Us link at the top of the page.

Please be respectful of others.

And if you have both, from Persistant Mullerian Duct Syndrome? Or neither, because of a congenital condition, surgery, or accident? And is a neo-vagina a vagina or merely a "pouch", as the Gay judge Lord Justice Sir Robert Ormrod ruled not so long ago in the notorious Corbett vs Corbett decision?

Let's start with the easy one first. Persistent Mullerian Duct Syndrome does not affect the external genitalia. Sorry, not penis/vagina combinations. It causes the presence of a uterus and undescended testicles. There is a small bulge where the uterus herniates, but no vagina.

And yes, in rare cases women are born without vaginas. As to surgery and accidents, that is just silly.

Now, Corbett is an example of bad law. It was largely rejected by most civilized people.

Personally, I favor same sex marriage. And I am not anti-TG. I don't agree with the silly extremes of some, like Helms. I do not appreciate attempts to include HBS under the transgender umbrella. But I am not anti-TG. Of course, as I have observed, if you don't absoultely celebrate their behavior you are considered to be an enemy.

Ironically, this is really a non-issue. The vast majority of people have no real problem telling men from women. There are exceptions, but they are incredibly rare. I doubt Texas and Kansas would not be issues were it not for the transgender movement drawing attention to themselves.

And the transgender crowd went too far in England. They will have eventually harmed those with HBS.

Hi J.J.

"There are exceptions, but they are incredibly rare."

How rare? What constitutes the exceptions you refer to?

"And the transgender crowd went too far in England. They will have eventually harmed those with HBS."

Could you explain this in detail?

It's an interesting moral/ethical dilemma: if a group risks losing some of their equality or privilige because of another group attempting to get their due equality and fair share of privilige is it moral for the first group to oppose the second to defend themselves? Or do they invalidate their claim on such by that action? If a group trying to fight for their own rights risk harming the comforts or general acceptance of the rights of others if they fail or during the process should they suffer in silence for the benefit of others or fight on?

Examples of this dilema could be found aplenty not just in civil rights movements but also under oppressive regimes where some groups (and individuals) would have to choose between cooperating with the oppressors for their own protection or suffering alongside others. Reprisals and collective punishment as a consequence of ressistance to such regimes are further examples. Another good one is the personal dillema of a closeted person whose public coming out could embarass or socially harm their family or harm the careers of family members.

This comment has been moderated for a TOS violation.

We want to know your opinion on this issue! All comments from unregistered users are held for moderation. While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.

If you would like to let the editorial team know about a possible policy violation, please use the Contact Us link at the top of the page.

Please be respectful of others.

This comment has been moderated for a TOS violation.

We want to know your opinion on this issue! All comments from unregistered users are held for moderation. While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.

If you would like to let the editorial team know about a possible policy violation, please use the Contact Us link at the top of the page.

Please be respectful of others.

How rare? What constitutes the exceptions you refer to?

Well, there are very rare cases where a person's gender is not immediately obvious. Where a person can't tell for sure. Even rarer are cases where that uncertainty persists. The character of Pat on Saturday Night Live would be a good example of a deliberate attempt to portray this.

Could you explain this in detail?

It is really quite simple. They went too far. They demanded the right to change documentation without changing sex. First that diminishes the value for HBS people who have been corrected. Second, it opens the door to a strong backlash when the party in power changes. Pushing for unreasonable rights can be harmful. And asking for a law that perpetuates a lie is unreasonable.

I'm deeply offended by your comments Just Jennifer. I'm a genetic woman, have all normal parts as assigned by birth. And I am deeply, deeply offended by your snide, pompous rhetoric. I'm surrounded by beautiful, wonderful T people of all stripes, ages, and designs, on a daily basis. Your remarks reveal an utter lack of compassion and understanding of transgender people. I'm so glad you are in the minority. Moderators, is this allowed?

Monica, thank you for your dedication to task, and your tireless efforts.

Hi VZ!
While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising.

JJ is not personally attacking anyone, merely condemning whole groups of people. Not that she's anti-TG, she said so herself. Yeah, right. She's not off-topic - much - nor abusive, and is as coherent as her arguments allow her to be (and probably more than I am). I've found many, well, ok, some, of her posts quite useful, whether I agree with her or not. Usually not, but sometimes.

Example, and to make this on-topic:

It's really very simple. I have a vagina. That removes any question in most jurisdictions.

This is provably false. Anyone not born with a vagina (like JJ) who is born in Tennessee, Kansas, parts of Texas, Illinois if their surgery was performed overseas until 2006, and if not by one particular Canadian surgeon thereafter, and many overseas jurisdictions will be legally male in most jurisdictions in the USA, due to the male birth certificate. While having a vagina is an advantage is most places, in all but a handful of cases, it's not sufficient (eg the UK), and in some, not even necessary (also the UK).

The problem is not so much the jurisdiction one resides in, for one can always move. The problem is the jurisdiction one was born in, and that "cannot easily be changed" so to speak.

I can understand JJ's viewpoint. She was (I assume) born in a sane jurisdiction, so has had her BC corrected. She has never lived in a normal male role, merely a highly abnormal and very temporary one until she could get her medical problem fixed. She is female, highly insulted at the ridiculous suggestion that anyone could consider her otherwise, and just doesn't see the problems others have had because she's never experienced any herself. Her body was never very masculinised, and she sees other women who were not so fortunate as being quite different from her. She is like those who were 1/64th coloured, who could never realise that many people would think they were only "passing for white", and treat them accordingly. "Gooble Gobble Gooble Gobble, One of Us, One of Us..." if you get the reference.

Now about commenting, and what the mods allow...

I have been less respectful of some commentators than I should be. It can be difficult being respectful when you consider some views to be not just incorrect, but actually evil and malicious. But that just means I should try all the harder. Fortunately the mods make respect a request, not a demand, or I would have been out on my ear a long time ago. It's a request I do try to honour though, the mods don't deserve much of the rubbish they put up with.

This comment has been moderated for a TOS violation.

We want to know your opinion on this issue! All comments from unregistered users are held for moderation. While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.

If you would like to let the editorial team know about a possible policy violation, please use the Contact Us link at the top of the page.

Please be respectful of others.

I'm deeply offended by your comments Just Jennifer. I'm a genetic woman, have all normal parts as assigned by birth. And I am deeply, deeply offended by your snide, pompous rhetoric. I'm surrounded by beautiful, wonderful T people of all stripes, ages, and designs, on a daily basis. Your ignorant remarks reveal an utter lack of compassion and understanding of transgender people. I'm so glad you are in the minority.

Oh my! Given the nature of your vitriol, I would have to assume that you are actually quite afraid that I am correct. By "in the minority" I assume you mean within this place, because I am actually rather moderate compared to most of the population. You seem to accept the "you are what you call yourself" approach that defines the radical transgender view. I think you will find that few people accept that view.

JJ is not personally attacking anyone, merely condemning whole groups of people. Not that she's anti-TG, she said so herself. Yeah, right. She's not off-topic - much - nor abusive, and is as coherent as her arguments allow her to be (and probably more than I am). I've found many, well, ok, some, of her posts quite useful, whether I agree with her or not. Usually not, but sometimes.

Alas, this is the problem with identity politics. No, I am rejecting an idea that some people have adopted as their identity. And those people see any attack on that idea as an attack on themselves. It is sort of like the old joke.."What's the definition of a bigot?....the one who is winning an argument with a liberal."

Example, and to make this on-topic:

It's really very simple. I have a vagina. That removes any question in most jurisdictions.

This is provably false. Anyone not born with a vagina (like JJ) who is born in Tennessee, Kansas, parts of Texas, Illinois if their surgery was performed overseas until 2006, and if not by one particular Canadian surgeon thereafter, and many overseas jurisdictions will be legally male in most jurisdictions in the USA, due to the male birth certificate. While having a vagina is an advantage is most places, in all but a handful of cases, it's not sufficient (eg the UK), and in some, not even necessary (also the UK).

Alas, a birth certificate is not what you make it out to be. It does not make one legally male, or female for that matter. It is one bit of evidence. You have simply shown my point to be correct. Now, let's consider the case pushed by Helms. Someone is foolish enough to petition a court under false pretenses. They get their birth certificate changed. And then they are arrested. As they are being pushed into the men's holding cell, they are screaming "But my birth certificate says I am legally a female! Sadly, their screams are drowned out by the laughter of the guards.

Sorry, but in most jurisdictions I would be legally female, and for all practical purposes I am female. I have no need to try to deceive as I am what I am.

The problem is not so much the jurisdiction one resides in, for one can always move. The problem is the jurisdiction one was born in, and that "cannot easily be changed" so to speak.

I can understand JJ's viewpoint. She was (I assume) born in a sane jurisdiction, so has had her BC corrected. She has never lived in a normal male role, merely a highly abnormal and very temporary one until she could get her medical problem fixed. She is female, highly insulted at the ridiculous suggestion that anyone could consider her otherwise, and just doesn't see the problems others have had because she's never experienced any herself. Her body was never very masculinised, and she sees other women who were not so fortunate as being quite different from her. She is like those who were 1/64th coloured, who could never realise that many people would think they were only "passing for white", and treat them accordingly. "Gooble Gobble Gooble Gobble, One of Us, One of Us..." if you get the reference.

Actually, appearance has nothing to do with it. In fact, quite the opposite. Early on, I took the time to actually observe other women. I came to realize that we come in all shapes and sizes. And no, I am not spouting transgender non-sense. I am talking about women who were born female. Unlike many TGs, I looked at women as a whole, not as a fantasy. I noticed that there are women who do not fit the "norm" that so many assume is necessary to "pass." And those women don't pass. Neither do I. No, we are what we are, not some guy in a dress fooling everyone. You see, women, or men for that matter, do not pass. They simply are. Passing is reserved for those who are not. I am simply a woman. No modifiers. Just a woman. And so are those who were born in the "worong jurisdictions" who can't change their birth certificates who were also born HBS and who have correction. They are simply women. Just like the rest of that approximate half of the population that are women.

Now about commenting, and what the mods allow...

I have been less respectful of some commentators than I should be. It can be difficult being respectful when you consider some views to be not just incorrect, but actually evil and malicious. But that just means I should try all the harder. Fortunately the mods make respect a request, not a demand, or I would have been out on my ear a long time ago. It's a request I do try to honour though, the mods don't deserve much of the rubbish they put up with.

Again, that is the problem with identity politics. The moderators have been known to show bias. They will tolerate more from those expressing the "correct" views. That, of course, is human nature. But I do respect that they allow the presentation of views that are contrary to the "party line." Sadly, as I have said, some transgender people demand that people actually celebrate their views or they accuse them of being evil.

Oh, and not to further piss in your pool, but not all state laws require that one needs to have full genital reconstruction to reflect the average genital appearance of the desired sex in order to have their birth certificate changed. In fact, some states have no requirement other than a court order be presented to the Department of health calling for the sex to be changed. Oh, Lordy, the vagary!

Sorry, but I won't take the bait. I'll just ignore the attacks and answer the part that is sort of on topic. Now, would you care to back this up? Would you care to quote, as they say, chapter and verse? Would you care to show any state that actually has a law that remotely indicates that something less than changing sex (which would mean full genital reconstruction) is acceptable to change the birth certificate? I mean, really, what you are doing is trying to play games with language. Yes, many states require a court order. For example, the state I am from requires a court order from a court of competent jurisdiction. That means a court where I live. If one lives in that state, one gets a court order in that state. If one lives elsewhere, one gets a court order there. Now, what is required to get that court order? Proof that one has had permanent gential modification. You could say, technically, that a court order is sufficient. But court orders require proof of genital modification. Of course, it is entirely possible for one to get a doctor who is willing to fudge to write a letter that is meant to deceive. I recall one silly suggestion that involved claiming that one had ectopic gonads, a hypertrophied clitoris and that was was born with vaginal agenesis. Of course, that would be a complete fraud. But then again, the person suggesting it does not really care about the truth.

Which brings me back to the question that no one has addressed. Why the need to lie? Why would one wish to engage in such silly efforts. It simply shows that having a birth certificate that says one is female does not make one legally female. If you have a birth certificate that says you are a female, and you have a penis, you are still a male. A piece of paper changes nothing. In 48 states you still cannot marry a man, in all 50 states you still go to jail with men, and well, you are still a male. So really, what is the appeal? Or is it just a game for some transgender people?

Perhaps Susan and J.J. might like to take a second look at the moral/ethical dimemma I pointed out. Like most dilemma in moral reasoning there aren't clear-cut 'correct' answers but interesting consequences of various arguments.

The argument that TG people were "Pushing for unreasonable rights" is interesting.

I recall the petitions signed by some Australian women against the referendum to grant women the vote. The referendum nevertheless went ahead, it passed and Australia was the 2nd country in the world to give women the vote.

Now if we apply J.J.'s argument as it is so far expressed to say, the example of a gay man risking embarressment to his family by coming out it seems that he should stay closeted for their sake. If we apply it to resistance fighters under Nazi occupation again the risk of reprisals means that if we accept the same argument the ressistance was immoral and the collaborators were doing the right thing.

Now like the trolley dilemma, where that 'under the bus' thing comes from where many people are happy to murder one person with a runaway tram to save many people if they have to pull a switch to change tracks to do so but not if they have to shove the person under it from up close with their own hands, many view these dilemmas as different dependant on arbitrary qualities but the same principle is involved at each level.

Oh and J.J. the unreasonableness is an interesting notion. I'm told the Fafafini of Samoa (remember them, the third sex of Samoa you seemed to keep ignoring in the discussions ofsocio-cultural aspects of the definition of a woman in the 3 models of transexuality discussion) don't traditionally have surgery, is it still unreasonable for them to try and claim this right in countries like New Zealand and Australia where there are many Samoans living today or should they be forced to get surgery despite their culture?

And as for the 'womens spaces' thing that is fixed by the answer to other issues. Public facilities should all become single-user disabled access ones, they are safer for everyone especially children and removes discrimination against disabled people who sometimes have to travel substantially to find a disabilty acess toilet. Sure a lot of politicians will need to find new places to pick up but thats a small price to pay.

"Oh my! Given the nature of your vitriol, I would have to assume that you are actually quite afraid that I am correct."

Come now J.J. That is hardly substantive evidence as I explained before in the 3 models of transexuality discussion if people objecting strongly was any sort of proof almost all the conspiracy theories of the world would be validated.

"Which brings me back to the question that no one has addressed. Why the need to lie? Why would one wish to engage in such silly efforts."

You assume that it is a lie, but it is only one if you accept the assumptions you hold.

I find it disturbing that you reduce womanhood crucially to just one single piece of the reproductive anatomy. I certainly do not.

Those who do not consider that one single specific piece of reproductive anatomy as the crucial essence of womanhood will then not consider it a lie.

A lie requires deliberate falshood. Someone who holds a different view, even if it is incorrect, are not lying by expressing that view.

Once again I am reminded of a beautiful little poem that I saw that I believe was on Dented Blue Mercedes. It is:

I'll never be the man you want me to be.

I'll never be the woman I hope to be.

I'll just be me.

Let it go at that, please.

Should we as a society consider acknowledging a third option legally for people who are in transition or who don't ever fit into a strict binary gender model?

One part of India has begun that http://www.samesame.com.au/news/international/2535/India-To-Acknowledge-Third-Gender.htm

Can everyone be covered by a two sex system sufficiently cleverly worded, is a third catagory or more needed?

Or is any formal definition of male or female beyod the personal a form of sexism perpetuating a broken system and institution?

All interesting questions.

You know, JJ is right the difference between men and women is really simple. The International Olympic Committee really gets it right and they solve for intersex problems as well. They just test your chromosomes and if you have at least on Y chromosome then you are are male, otherwise you are female. Very simple and scientific. No fantasies about what penises and vaginas are. No worry about the general stupidity of the masses because they are using science, just cold hard genetic facts. SAS, if it were true to its name would have to modify you on the chromosomal level, perhaps even genetic. Hopefully one day it will even involve time travel, just to shore up some loose ends. So yeah JJ gets it right, the difference between men and woman is simple and scientifically objective unfortunately she doesn't really want to be right.

Note to everyone else, this is extremely tongue and cheek.

Over and over again, the LGBT community is attacked by the religious zealots, such as Focus on the Family and the Concern Women for America. Autumn Sandeen has done a great job of monitoring their movements for us