Quote:
Originally Posted by HowSoonIsNow
Jo,
With your last post (eta: post #50), I am now upset and I just realized, among other reasons, why.
Your statements equating Nikki's plight to other generic legal challenges to inheritance reminds me of people who say to me--someone who is denied federal immigration rights based on DOMA AND FL's anti-trans laws--well, MANY people have trouble with immigration, not just you. Why don't you try to immigrate another way?
The reason I am not allowed to live here with my husband is because of specific laws that prevent it based on sex and gender. For people to equate it with others' immigration struggles is not valid b/c, if he was born male, I would have had legal status within a year of our marriage. No Question.
So too, the reason her benefits are being challenged is because of specific laws and precedents that are discriminatory based on her assigned birth sex. It is NOT some random family dispute! It is a challenge that can ONLY move forward due to discriminatory laws and precedents set against a certain segment of people.
It is not just like any other case because there would be no case if she had been assigned female at birth.
|
I do see your point, and I feel that you are somehow thinking that I'm unsympathetic to the situation in this country. Believe me, I'm not.
I'm not actually saying it's the same, but I can also see that I'm not going to be able to explain it in a way that will be understood.
For the record, I get that trans people and gays are unfairly treated. I'm not saying we aren't. I'm not trans, but I do have a nasty ex-husband who may, at some point in the future, try to argue that I'm an unfit parent based solely on the fact that I love a woman. At that time, I will find myself in a legal battle too.
I am sympathetic. I'm just not seeing this the same way that you are.
I don't wish to continue to upset anyone, so I'll leave you all to this conversation.
