I don't think we should assume that people who transition are "at the end of their rope", so to speak. That can be true in some cases, but not all.

I am considering taking hormones to masculinize. It isn't a matter of life and death for me.

I'm not sure if you are referring to the Oprah segment or to this discussion in general. I do know, as a transgender person, that the story on Oprah does not define me, my trans friends, our community, or our trans movement in which we fight endlessly for equal rights and acceptance.

*****

I do believe that the Oprah show portrayed that couple's situation in an over-simplified manner and probably left a lot of material on the cutting room floor. Regardless of how or why this couple came to their decision, I'm sure it was not done lightly or without a lot of thought and discussion on the pros and cons. No matter the reason for transition, it is a long process that cannot be decided in one fleeting moment, no matter who you are.

Do I think the Oprah story and that couple's situation casts a favorable light on transition and trans* people? No. But that is due to my own personal opinions and beliefs. No matter my thoughts and feelings, that was their issue and their decision to make, and it is none of my business to judge or care why. They did what they thought they needed to do. They aren't hurting me or interfering in my life.

forgive me if i misunderstood what anyone meant by those comments. i certainly don't think anyone is a bad person and i don't want to shame anyone into talking a certain way. just was expressing my own gratitude at the questioning of this very common reaction to attribute things we don't like/agree with to mental illness. i personally find this language to be ableist and upsetting. there are other ways of expressing disbelief, frustration, shock, lack of ability to comprehend why someone would do this, etc. than to attribute it to mental illness. it does a disservice to people with actual mental health issues and it does a disservice to the people you're talking about when we frankly don't know whether or not they have mental health issues.

edited/tl;dr -- people see things they think are bad or wrong. when people label those things as "crazy," it bothers me similarly to how it bothers me when people label bad or wrong or ridiculous or stupid or whatever things as "gay" or anything else. because i'm crazy and i resent the association of mental health with bad/wrong/ridiculous, as it perpetuates stigma. it also just doesn't make sense to me, as in it doesn't seem to be a relevant descriptor of the situation.

I think that's half the problem with media in general. The original story and all its nuances gets condensed into a 30-second to 3-minute sound byte that wraps up the entire story (according to broadcasting company) and leaves a lot of people shaking their heads in confusion, or worse, getting the wrong idea and grabbing their pitchforks.

I didn't mean to grab mine but it wasn't the couple I was going after. For me, it was the way their story was represented. It was the wording and seeming-suggestion that it's just so easy to transition and everybody who identifies as queer should do it if they want to legally marry.

That might not have been their intention at all. Nonetheless, it caused a visceral reaction.

That's the thing. The media. If anyone has ever been covered by the media they chop it up and re-gurge for easy digestion. I have had friends who have had their stories covered by The Medja and they completely misrepresented them. Utterly. Sex worker mates trying to be public with pro-sexworker stories get completely mangled. A friend of mine decided to help pay for couples therapy with her husband by volunteering herself to be covered in a story and the media blitz around certain type of couples therapy pretty much broke them up for four months because of the stress of mis representation. You can be interviewed in a really positive way and then have 85% on the editing room floor and the finished product makes you look like a complete cheese todger.

I wouldn't trust an Oprah show for it's sound journalism! That's bonkers.

It's the media circus and depiction I think is the wank heads in this story.

I just googled "marriage transgender loophole" in google. It seems the media likes to call it this from 2010-2014, just on the first page of searching.

Heh. I was thinking since last night that I wanted to come in here and pretty much say what hb did.

I've read all the posts in the thread and I've been thinking about this a bit, and realized how odd it was starting to seem to me that people were feeling so strongly, and had such strong opinions based on very little information whatsoever. Granted, I did not do an exhaustive search of the internet--but a cursory search gleaned very little information about Jacki and Christine. Yes, the media.

Oprah is not a reliable source. Two or three paragraphs online is not a reliable source. Three minutes of a snipped video online is not a reliable source. Even one comment can be taken out of context and spun out in an article or edited interview. You know how teachers tell you not to use Wikipedia as a source? Well, don't treat three minutes of video from Oprah and a couple paragraphs from Huff Post's "Gay Voices" as any sort of ACTUAL information.

What do we really know about this couple? Christine went on Oprah to talk about her coming out experience and discovering her husband and was also gay. And that the Oprah show did a follow up with Christine and they discovered she was in a relationship with someone named Jacki, who got some sort of top surgery (it keeps being called a double mastectomy) so they could get married.

That's all we know. We don't know anything about Jacki's background or her feelings about gender, or if there were deeper motivations behind this than getting married--though that can feel pretty fucking deep to some people. Maybe there were, maybe there weren't.

Can you imagine if Oprah came knocking on your door again and discovered that you were a lesbian married to someone who was legally male, but kinda still identified as female anyways? Maybe they are just trying to control as much of their own story as they can.

WHO THE HELL KNOWS?

That's my point. The discussion is interesting and I like hearing differing points of view--BUT, I can't see getting that mad about it. I don't see how one person's choice invalidates trans* experience. What does that even mean? Phrases like "trans* experience"? That covers a lot of territory. And I'd also like to think that two people doing something, even if it turned about to be disingenuous, don't have enough real power to affect the trans* movement at all. Like, seriously if two queers that went on Oprah and had a couple tiny articles written about them can set us back--well then trans* activists and their allies aren't doing a very good job!

This slightly reminds me of the time that FTM got pregnant (who also went on Oprah, oddly enough, though I don't remember his name) and the community was in fucking UPROAR about it. This isn't quite the same uproar--but there was no trans* apocalypse after that. The sky didn't fall. As far as I can tell we've still come a long way in the ten or more years since that happened. His fifteen minutes of fame are over and those of us who care about trans* issues are still fighting the good fight.

It mystifies me sometimes how individual people's PERSONAL choices can come to represent so much just because we may disagree with them, or find them distasteful, or their choices scare us. Nobody I know outside of this bfp circle even KNOWS who these people are. I doubt they will have much actual influence on anything.

Christine actually responds quite a bit in the comments in the Huffington Post article. It gave me a little more insight into their story, but yes we still know very little.


James McInnis:
Kimberly Player "Great" seems a little strong; I'm completely neutral about them getting married, which means I don't care.

Christine: James McInnis Thanks! We care about having equal rights.



Convience? You mean not being dragged out of women's restrooms anymore or stared rudely at public pools and laughed at because she looked like a man in a bikini. Do you want to be the type of person that is judgmental and self righteous?


I'm sorry you feel that way Maureen. Jacki actually opted to have reconstruction of her chest and it was really well done. I'm terribly sorry if we offend you. That was never our intention.


Thank you. You're very kind. xxxooo It wasn't easy talking about my personal life on TV...Harpo has been calling every 6-9 months checking up on me for 8 years. I know not everyone is going to be kind like you when I go into these things but I want you to know I really appreciate it Mignonne. xxoo

I usually never even THINK to read the comments on articles because they are usually a hot mess LOL. Though ironically in this case I would probably trust the words straight out of her mouth more than the article itself. Thanks!

GEMME by quoting what I wrote so completely, your post feels like you are being negative to me specifically. I wasn't being specifically negative to you.

I posted what I did because I know that many people read what's here. I posted what I did because it was an opportunity to talk about how people who don't even intend to be hurtful get pulled into mental health oppression.

It was relevant to this thread not only because we have a responsibility to other BFP posters to interrupt hurtful language, but also because Oprah probably didn't mean to be hurtful to anybody, yet (as you pointed out) many trans people are/were/could be harmed by this segment on her show. This is a thread about how out actions impact others.

So since you posted to me personally, here is my personal response back to you:

You wrote about your experience with your mom and I feel genuine compassion for you, that must have been so difficult.
Sadly though, our experiences of being hurt by someone with mental health issues does not give you or anyone permission to say things like "there's a screw loose" -- that's a bad way to say you don't agree. If you are talking about somieone's mental condition, and if you ARE a psychiatrist, you wouldn't have permission to talk about their condition here anyway.
An experience of being hurt by someone with a broken leg doesn't give you permission to say "that's so lame." An experience of being hurt by someone with cognitive delays doesn't give you permission to say "that's so retarded." An experience of being treated badly by a poor person doesn't give you permission to say "That's ghetto" The list goes on.

It's clear from your total number of posts that you care about this site. I don't know you, nor do I find sport in shaming anyone.
You and I both feel the responsibility to talk about everyday oppression, and our part in interrupting it -That's why we both post in threads like this.

Wait. There was a shit storm over an ftm giving birth? Seriously? >:( so bloody what! Not every ftm is a hetero median representative of what male and man is. Most.of the ftms I know transition into their own understanding of their gender and sex. That means many of them like to be fisted, have no issue with penetration in any hole and one of my ftm mates actually went off T to give birth because his wife couldn't. I didn't blink, if his body can do it and he's agreeable, its part of his gender and sex expression. Why does what one person does have to be representative of an entire group if they are in a minority? Isn't that a bit fucked up? Why do we ask people to be spokes people for gender, sex and sexual orientation for everyone? We aren't borg . One femme will never be able to represent everyone with a feminine gender expression. Why do we expect others to do it?

Just ugh.

CCB, the guy's name is Thomas Beattie. He bore 3 beautiful babies before his final reassignment surgery.

Some of the correlations you drew confuse me. For one, one doesn't have to be poor to be ghetto and vise versa. And I just don't get the lame comment. I can't see where 'that's so lame' would be offensive, hurt leg or not. To be clear, I understand what lame means. I just don't see the offense in it.

The number of one's posts means nothing. You have less than 400 but you have strong opinions and are vocal about what you feel strongly for. I don't judge people on how often they do or do not post.

I'm really balking at you speaking for me and others, which you have done multiple times now. You don't know what I feel responsibility for or why I post in threads. At all. It feels very condescending for you to speak as though you do and I would rather it not continue.

I appreciate good debate but I feel our discussion is pulling the train off the rails, so if you'd like to address this with me privately, feel free. I welcome it.

Yep, I was the other one that made what I saw as a light-hearted, if rather flip, comment about their possibly needing an evaluation if Jacki changed her sex solely for the purpose of marrying Christine.

Honestly, it is difficult to be genuine when one has to constantly re-evaluate every comment and observation in a forum so as to not offend someone, somewhere.

Do I not have empathy and compassion for the mentally ill and chemically dependent? Have I not shown that in the 3-years that I have posted here?

Do I sometimes make a comment that I think is humorous that others do not find funny at all? Clearly.

I am sorry if my comment, specifically about Christine and Jacki's behavior came off as heartless and stirred up pain for past or present history.

My feelings get hurt easily. I don't challenge every comment written that might bother me. I feel that my own past experiences are mine alone and if someone makes a comment that offends-they are not directing it at me personally.

Unless they are-in that case, I can either chose to let it go or address it. Since Gemme stood up and faced the comments directed at the two of us; I needed to do so, too.

I am sorry I may have caused hurt but still believe that as the story is written (which may not be true); I still question their judgement.

Perhaps questioning their judgement would have been less offensive than questioning their mental status.

I agree with that.

Why does or how does one's own journey and the shoes they walk in be an overall deciding factor of another's journey?

Should we even be questioning their personal decisions? If so, does this not open the door for all to be scrutinized?

Last when does the things we do for love take on a true meaning?

Isn't the point of a forum to have "lively debate"?

Can we not question? How do we learn if we do not question?

We call each other on everything if we think we have crossed a line or even if we simply disagree.

What would be the point of forums if everyone agreed with everything and everyone?

I argue with myself, frequently.

Nothin wrong with a bit of argy-bargy. Keeps things spicy and sexy.

To me, the fact that Jacki is still referred to as her/she speaks on whether she is really trans. I personally don't see her as really wanting to be a man so that she can live as a man... she just wanted to be able to check that box for a marriage license. That to me is where there is a "slap in the face" to those who really are living a trans experience.

Sounds almost like an entitled child. I want what I want when I want it so rather than wait and fight for marriage in California, I'm just going to join the straight world and take the easy way out.

I know that's it's super easy to get both breasts removed. I like to do it every five years.

Its the easy way out of any pinch.

Also, christine stated that their situation is more complicated than pronoun use. I know a few of "she's" who consider themselves their own gender. They just aren't all that fussed with pronouns. You just can't know how she feels about her own gender. Some peoples gender fluxes in a day to day fashion. So what?

But do they get all of the straight priveleges that are now legally and permanently afforded to this couple?

Well it was a whole lot faster then waiting for CA to jump on the bandwagon.

As a lesbian, should I be upset that an FTM who achieves male status can get "straight privilege" via marriage and I can't?

Same sex couples are supposed to "fight the good fight" or get married in another state or country that they don't even live in- which basically is meaningless from a legal standpoint.

I don't necessarily think it was a wise move, but these comments about "taking the easy way out" do tick me off.

Can I ask why it bothers you? I'm just curious.

I don't think it's damn easy for anyone of us- lesbian, trans or anyone else.

Christine & Jacki could easily be members of the Planet and fit right in. As far as I know they are not, but they have the same struggles all of us here do- with gender, navigating the legal system, etc. I don't see them on easy street. Far from it.

I hear what you are saying. I guess I see the path they have ahead of themselves as a little more yellow brick roadish than many who are not in a straight marriage and living in a state that doesn't allow gay marriage.

Thanks for your response.

Thank you for your response as well. Yes, I don't see the situation in California being dire, but on the other hand the legal state of marriage for same sex couples is still tenuous at best in most places. But yes it makes it puzzling for me, but I don't see it as an easy way out.

What they want is equal rights. It's what we all want.

I think marriage can be very tenuous for transsexed people as well. I have heard more than one person mention their marriages are often investigated for fraud.

I don't see this as a "transgender/transsexual loophole." It is a "heterosexual" loophole where if you have one legal male and one legal female you can have a legal marriage. Obviously, if you had two transsexed individuals of the same legal sex (2 females or 2 males) this "loophole" wouldn't apply either.

As a lesbian, I would be happy if achieving lesbian status for someone who wasn't lesbian so they could get married or achieve something for their partners or families was helpful. Unfortunately, there is no legal, financial or any other institutional advantage to doing so. There also isn't for being transsexed/transgender. It is lining up with a so-called heterosexual coupling that does the trick. The defenders of "traditional" marriage are not happy with an FTM or MTF getting married to someone of the opposite sex-they will see that as a "loophole" or worse.

If anything, I see this could be viewed just as much as undermining of same sex marriage, but that isn't how it's being viewed, which I do find fascinating.

I think they had every reason to anticipate the interview request (see below) and that if controlling their story was important they could have declined the opportunity. They already had experience with the media.

*bold added by me*
I can't imagine being under that kind of scrutiny and it sounds like they knew it would kick up some things that might be negative. Maybe this will be one of those timed release stories that grows with time depending on the interest it generates and we're just seeing the first layer. Who knows? Not me.

I think the "easiest" way out would have been to move to a state that allows marriage. That they didn't, instead she went through a painful, expensive and full of recovery surgery (I know what a masactomy involves and it's gruelling) tells me there is more to gender flux of Jacki than we can guess.

I think moving to a new state would have been FAR easier. I've had heavy surgery amd moved continents. I'd take moving over heavy surgery any day.

While I understand the intention of what you've posted here, I have to disagree. You, Candy, are a reasonable person. Or, at least you seem to be. Therefore, the story didn't elicit any strong feelings in you and that's makes sense. You're fine with live and let live. So am I.

That being said, there are a bunch of freaking homophobic nutters out there that will take just about anything that may make GLBT people look like a "problem" and RUN with it. Think the Duck Dynasty scandal a few months back. People were "Standing with Phil" when they didn't even know what the heck they were standing for! People were up in arms, ready to attack GLBT people because of something one person on a popular(ish) TV show said.

People who are comfortable in their own bubbles who don't actively go out and attack others but do have a problem with a certain group of people secretly love it when there's some type of fuel to add to the fire. Any excuse to finally let loose that rage they've had bottled up for years.

It's dangerous because we still live in a homophobic and ignorant society. Many people are enlightened and either don't care or are fine with GLBT people. Others are just waiting for an excuse, no matter how they appear on the outside.

It's stuff like this that sends the wrong message. Is it a huge ripple in the pond? No, not really. The Duck Dynasty thing was actually a lot worse. I've just always taken issue with misrepresentation, either intentional or unintentional because us queer folks have so few platforms and even less positive (and accurate) representation as it is.

This is not their responsibility. People used to use that excuse on why people should not behave outrageously at pride, we should all tone it down so people accept us.

It's really not their responsibility what the homophobes do. It's the homophobes responsibility.

Yeah, it's a lot to go through- and Jacki went through with it no matter what her reasons were.

EXACTLY. That was the entire point of my post. The kicker is that she takes testosterone. That has nothing to do with getting her gender marker changed.

All she needed was the top surgery and a note saying from her surgeon that this qualifies her as male in the state of CA

There are many a transman who feels guilt and loss around transitioning. They feel that they can no longer be feminists if they transition. Sometimes their lesbian community shuns them because they feel betrayed. The transperson become invisible (invisible to both the straight and gay communities...both losses, but in different ways), which can be painful.

Jacki, on the other hand, is in a great position. Better than she was before transition. She doesn't lose her lesbian community (because she is still a woman. I mean, it isn't her FAULT that she had to transition...she needed to marry her wife), but she gets hetero privilege. Pretty nice deal.

My original point though, was to say that there has to be some sort of gender incongruence for Jacki or she would have just had the top surgery, changed her gender marker, and gone on with her life. That isn't what she did. She transitioned.

Several people have said that they could have moved to a state that offered same-sex marriages. I may be mistaken but at that time I am fairly certain even the states that offered same-sex marriages couldn't offer the Federal benefits of spousal Social Security, etc. Isn't that what was mentioned in the interview?

According to the Huffington Post article, Jacki and Christine married in 2013 and recently celebrated their one year anniversary.

Same sex marriage became legal in California on June 28, 2013.

I do understand that many Californians did not believe it would really happen.

*"The judgment of the Ninth Circuit was vacated and the case was returned to that Court with instructions to dismiss the Prop 8 sponsors' appeal. On June 28, 2013 a stay of effect was removed from the federal district court decision and same-sex marriages were able to resume. Same-sex couples married in San Francisco later that day."

Nor did I personally think that portions of DOMA would be ruled unconstitutional on June 26, 2013.

*"December 7, 2012, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. Oral arguments were heard on March 27, 2013.[113] In a 5–4 decision on June 26, 2013, the Court ruled Section 3 of DOMA to be unconstitutional, declaring it "a deprivation of the liberty of the person protected by the Fifth Amendment."[1]:25"

*Wikipedia

I'm lost. I think because of the partners I've had, who ID as female half the time and something else other parts of the time, plus their gender shifts and changes from day to day, hour to hour... Often contemplating either T or top surgery but not thinking of changing their legal sex, nor wanting their public pronoun use to be anything but, but privately, in bed and in other situations "he"....
I'm not suprised its not a big jump to get the legal transition.

It also shows people how absurd it it to hold others back from marriage, no matter what their sex or gender. Its a good point to be making, frankly.

Hey Dapper, I hit you up in rep, but I think this is germane to the larger conversation. *extra bold by me*

First up, I have only watched the video once and read this thread in its entirety.

I was unaware that she was on T. When I saw the video, my thought on seeing Jacki's muscularity and hearing her voice was to think "I bet she works out really hard and maybe does or did take steroids for bodybuilding". That is something I have seen before and it is less likely to lead to hair loss and beard growth.

If she is taking T, that is a game changer and I would have to agree that there is more to the gender issue for her than a financial advantage. I have to leave for a bit but will be interested to learn more about this later. I will look for the Huff article and if anyone can tell me where more content (with any credibility) can be found, I'd appreciate it.

Be back later...

Anyone want to slam Blue and I for marrying in Canada at a time (September 2004) when we couldn't do it in Israel (where I was living), California (where Blue was living), or the UK (where I'm from)? I mean, God forbid that we should have been so selfish as to care only about what mattered to us (i.e., being married).

Honestly, I'm seeing a really slippery slope here.

Words

I have no issue with you or anyone else who finds themselves in a ridiculously skewed situation finding a way around an obstacle to achieve goals that should be available to all. If 90% of a population gains advantage of some sort being married then the other 10% should be able to use a work around until the wrong is righted.

I found my self using a "loophole" to get access to better medical insurance this year and would do it again if I could. My issue with this situation isn't that they did it or really even how, but with the way that a big media machine is presenting it as some little slight of hand without providing more content around the topic as a whole.

No slamming here, I'm glad you found a way.