Lesbian Couple "Looks into Transgender" as a Loophole to Get Married

[~ocean]

I had to watch this video twice to understand what you were seeing , I have to disagree ~ reasoning being , Jackie seemed very masculine on her own w/ out her marriage to Chris. The thought of transgender came after YES ! But it was from her love and devotion to take care of( her ) wife. It was Jackie that seeked an alternative way to change his sexual identity willingly ,to secure her (wife's ) well being after his demise. That is a selfless love. The timing of Jackie's decision may have came after the overwhelming love he had for his wife. The intension wasn't to undermine transgender lifestyle ... or was it taking matters into his own hands and saying I will provide for my wife as a legal man to do so , I see the POSITIVE in Jackie's actions. Not the negative. I think they make beautiful couple ~ and God Bless their union ~

[Gemme]

Originally Posted by ~ocean

I had to watch this video twice to understand what you were seeing , I have to disagree ~ reasoning being , Jackie seemed very masculine on her own w/ out her marriage to Chris. The thought of transgender came after YES ! But it was from her love and devotion to take care of( her ) wife. It was Jackie that seeked an alternative way to change his sexual identity willingly ,to secure her (wife's ) well being after his demise. That is a selfless love. The timing of Jackie's decision may have came after the overwhelming love he had for his wife. The intension wasn't to undermine transgender lifestyle ... or was it taking matters into his own hands and saying I will provide for my wife as a legal man to do so , I see the POSITIVE in Jackie's actions. Not the negative. I think they make beautiful couple ~ and God Bless their union ~

Coming out as transgender is hard. It turns ones life upside down and completely changes that person's relationships with everyone. Parents grieve for daughters and sons lost, jobs are lost, relationships are ended or have to begin over again from a new base point. It's tumultuous and it's hard as Hell.

Coming out as transgender isn't a "loophole". Jacki, who still identifies as female, as she is still referred to as "she" and is addressed as Christine's "wife". Not husband. Wife.

To do that, to go through that process....not because one feels that they are truly transgender, but in order to get married to someone is a personal betrayal to those who are actually transgender and who have gone through the process with truly authentic intentions. It does trivialize the process of transitioning when someone says oh, I can do it with no thought and *snap* everything changes and it's all good.

Whether it was their intention or not, it does undermine what transfolks go through. Their actions show little thought for the process or the ramifications and feel quite childish to me.

I want to get married.
*footstomp*

In their eyes, they had a problem and they solved that problem. That's all it was for them. I agree with Anya. There's a screw loose in both of them. It may be love and it may be true love, but what happens if they split up? Then Jacki, who identifies as 'she', has all this paperwork that says 'he' and no wife. Would that double mastectomy and effort be worth it then?

I mentioned this in the ask a trans person thread but what really gets my goat is when Christine says that Jacki is "authentic".

Yeah, living a lie, and publicly taunting it, is totally authentic.

Totally.

[Kobi]

Once I got passed my own need for linear thinking, orderliness, and logic I actually understood this. I think.

Based on the information and the way it was presented, I can see how one might think of this as a ruse, a trivializing of the trans experience, and/or an odd means to an end.

However, when taken as a whole, it demonstrates to me how the process to knowing, accepting, and living as ourselves is not always a well defined journey from here to there.

It starts with a supposedly hetero male and female getting married and then "discovering" they are both gay. We all know gayness doesnt pop up overnight. And accepting ones gayness is a process of discovery, experimentation, and fiddling to find what works for them.

As for Chris and Jackie. I have a hard time believing someone who identifies with their femaleness will just suddenly be willing to abandon this just to provide financial security for their partner through the privileges of marriage.

I have a hard time believing one could even get through the process of transitioning without there being some element of truth to it, and desire to do so.

Thus, it seems to me, the marriage thing was a method of transitioning while appearing selfless was really self serving.

[Nadeest]

I already commented on this, in the trans news thread, so I will try to refrain from commenting, here.

[candy_coated_bitch]

Meh. I am not so much bothered by this article. I think it is poorly written and poorly conceived. I don't think the issue is presented well--but it was a 3 min. clip from an Oprah show and a couple paragraphs on Huffington Post online.

I am inclined to agree with Dapper (and Kobi as well) and think this was not such a huge sacrifice on Jacki's part and probably that there is more going on gender-wise than the article suggests. Maybe even than Jacki herself knows, because we aren't always completely self aware when it comes to our motivations.

Jacki is masculine presenting. And was before she "looked into transgender". I agree her chest looks pretty damn flat in the earlier pictures. I don't know about you guys--but if I couldn't get married my first thought would NOT be to transition. It's a little more complicated being feminine presenting. Maybe. If one was a strongly identified butch woman, would that woman automatically think of chest surgery (they called it a double mastectomy in the article and video so it's unclear what exactly it was) and legally changing her gender to male in order to get married? I just don't think that's where a person's head normally goes to immediately.

Of course, yes--she could have a screw loose as well LOL. But I am guessing this was not a huge loss or sacrifice to Jacki. To many other people it would be. Which is why most people in the world don't transition in order to get married. I am obviously not going on much (and no one else is either, by the way) but it almost seemed to me as though this might have been a way out of talking about gender issues with Christine. Or, that she inhabits a gender space where this in actuality is NOT a huge deal to her.

Again, short poorly written article and video with not much to go on. I think if it were presented differently it wouldn't seem trivialize a variety of different identities.

Actually, now I am giggling about Christine and her former husband coming out to each other. Which absolutely makes coming out in a heterosexual marriage seem easy. "Honey, I'm gay." "Awesome, so am I!"

[Linus]

To the topic at hand, I commented in another thread but I will mention it here. This sets a dangerous precedent, IMHO. It treats the decision to medically transition as a trivial one and more as a means to a financial end (a way to get around things) than as a means of self-existence (survival). That's a big distinction and it's hard enough for many to exist (i.e., get jobs, get food, get housing, just live).

What I find more frustrating and mindbending is that this decision was done during the time that the court was deciding same-sex marriage in California. They could have easily gotten married elsewhere and waited. Federally they would have been protected and it would have been a matter of time that California would have covered it.

Originally Posted by ~ocean

I had to watch this video twice to understand what you were seeing , I have to disagree ~ reasoning being , Jackie seemed very masculine on her own w/ out her marriage to Chris. The thought of transgender came after YES ! But it was from her love and devotion to take care of( her ) wife. It was Jackie that seeked an alternative way to change his sexual identity willingly ,to secure her (wife's ) well being after his demise. That is a selfless love. The timing of Jackie's decision may have came after the overwhelming love he had for his wife. The intension wasn't to undermine transgender lifestyle ... or was it taking matters into his own hands and saying I will provide for my wife as a legal man to do so , I see the POSITIVE in Jackie's actions. Not the negative. I think they make beautiful couple ~ and God Bless their union ~

~ocean, I'm going to take issue with this (as an individual). Being a transsexual or transgender individual is not a "lifestyle". No more than being gay is a "lifestyle". Being vegan is a lifestyle. Being athletic is a lifestyle. Being a surfer girl is a lifestyle.

Being trans is not a lifestyle. Being trans is living.

[~ocean]

Originally Posted by Linus

To the topic at hand, I commented in another thread but I will mention it here. This sets a dangerous precedent, IMHO. It treats the decision to medically transition as a trivial one and more as a means to a financial end (a way to get around things) than as a means of self-existence (survival). That's a big distinction and it's hard enough for many to exist (i.e., get jobs, get food, get housing, just live).

What I find more frustrating and mindbending is that this decision was done during the time that the court was deciding same-sex marriage in California. They could have easily gotten married elsewhere and waited. Federally they would have been protected and it would have been a matter of time that California would have covered it.



~ocean, I'm going to take issue with this (as an individual). Being a transsexual or transgender individual is not a "lifestyle". No more than being gay is a "lifestyle". Being vegan is a lifestyle. Being athletic is a lifestyle. Being a surfer girl is a lifestyle.

Being trans is not a lifestyle. Being trans is living.

I agree Linnus ~ it was a poor choice of words w/ no intent to offend ~

[Words]

I'm reminded here of how in defending the sanctity of marriage as a union between a man and woman, the straights would make such outrageous statements as next folks will be wanting to marry their dogs/goats/whatever and we'd all be up in arms about it. This is ONE couple. Regardless of their motives, regardless of how far along the butch/transgender/whatever spectrum Jackie was at the time of the surgery, regardless of whether or not she/he now considers herself/himself a woman or a man, regardless of anything, who the hell are we to say they their marriage is a sham and, better still, that they're mentally unstable because of x, y, or z? Do we really want to be the new oppressors? I know I don't.

I am by no means wanting to trivialize the journey of anyone who is transgendered. I know what that journey looks like. I do think, however, that we need to think of the kind of precedent that we're setting here in not displaying acceptance of what, for all we know, is a healthy, loving, relationship.

Words

[Kelt]

Originally Posted by Words

I'm reminded here of how in defending the sanctity of marriage as a union between a man and woman, the straights would make such outrageous statements as next folks will be wanting to marry their dogs/goats/whatever and we'd all be up in arms about it. This is ONE couple. Regardless of their motives, regardless of how far along the butch/transgender/whatever spectrum Jackie was at the time of the surgery, regardless of whether or not she/he now considers herself/himself a woman or a man, regardless of anything, who the hell are we to say they their marriage is a sham and, better still, that they're mentally unstable because of x, y, or z? Do we really want to be the new oppressors? I know I don't.

I am by no means wanting to trivialize the journey of anyone who is transgendered. I know what that journey looks like. I do think, however, that we need to think of the kind of precedent that we're setting here in not displaying acceptance of what, for all we know, is a healthy, loving, relationship.

Words

For the most part I agree with your post and a lot of what several others have expressed, I posted in another thread earlier and am still thinking about and learning from differing opinions. I bolded a bit above because I would love to agree but can't.

Yes, this is one couple and it's nobodies business but theirs. BUT this one couple is on Oprah. I've been away from popular culture for a long time but a decade or so ago Oprah held enormous clout in forming popular opinion. Obscure authors becoming bestsellers overnight, creating product sensations, and lots of water cooler conversations. This is why I think it has the precedent setting power of a thousand couples and that is the part I think could be detrimental to the trans community.

Maybe her cultural persuasion powers have diminished, but unless they have, it is the amount of publicity with so little content I find disturbing.

[imperfect_cupcake]

Originally Posted by Kelt

For the most part I agree with your post and a lot of what several others have expressed, I posted in another thread earlier and am still thinking about and learning from differing opinions. I bolded a bit above because I would love to agree but can't.

Yes, this is one couple and it's nobodies business but theirs. BUT this one couple is on Oprah. I've been away from popular culture for a long time but a decade or so ago Oprah held enormous clout in forming popular opinion. Obscure authors becoming bestsellers overnight, creating product sensations, and lots of water cooler conversations. This is why I think it has the precedent setting power of a thousand couples and that is the part I think could be detrimental to the trans community.

Maybe her cultural persuasion powers have diminished, but unless they have, it is the amount of publicity with so little content I find disturbing.

It's a good point. Then I blame Oprah and the media for purposefully manipulating a gap in mainstream understanding of gender, sex and sexual desire. They are all different things and frankly this is the media having a Funtime shit stirring again.

I'm not falling for it.