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

[dykeumentary]

Just a friendly reminder, because I know that we all want to be good people here-

Please lets not use expressions like "having a screw loose" or "ordering a psych consult" when we mean to say that we don't agree/understand someone's decision.
The mental health industrial complex has been used as a weapon against GLBT and gender-noncomforming people for years. The stigma of "being crazy" also keeps people who need mental health care from getting it.

Thanks! Now back to lively debate!

[vagina]

Personally, my feeling is that this perfectly describes the transgender community or movement.

[Linus]

Originally Posted by vagina

Personally, my feeling is that this perfectly describes the transgender community or movement.

How does this describe the transgender community?

[Words]

Originally Posted by vagina

Personally, my feeling is that this perfectly describes the transgender community or movement.

I think you made your views on the transgendered community perfectly clear when you first joined. I find it sad that they haven't changed, sadder still that, in spite of having been around for some time now, you still can't see - don't care? - just how offensive the way in which you express those views actually is.

[aishah]

i can see all sides of this - i think the arguments for why this may be deeper than it initially appears are pretty compelling.

that said, i know of transfolks who've faced charges of fraud in certain areas of the country for legitimately having gender identity disorder, transitioning, and then marrying someone under the law, without any discussion of doing it for the "loophole," just straight up fraud even though their gender was changed on their identity documents.

as much drama has been caused for people who definitely identify as trans and who medically transition and then choose to get married, it makes me wonder if this couple aren't opening themselves up even moreso to potential charges of fraud? the state has no problem getting into folks' marriages where this is concerned. people get charged with marriage fraud for this, for marrying for immigration reasons, etc. i'm afraid i find the legal implications of this more disturbing than the relational ones.

i also agree with words and dykeumentary who've pointed out that regardless of whether one agrees with the actions, what's really at fault here is a state and a social system that defines marriage in such a fucked up, narrow way as to even make this situation possible.

(also thanks dykeumentary for putting words to the ableism of casual comments about people's mental health states. it upset me too.)

[Kobi]

aishah raises an important point. The issues are deeper and more complex.

But it behooves us to look at the larger picture as well.

I checked various news sources on this story. The majority did not affix a label to this couple. They were simply referred to as a couple....not a lesbian couple, not a same sex couple, just a couple.

This is huge.

We have been trained to understand the word "loophole" as meaning something bad, something nefarious, something exploitative.

Using something that exists in a way different from what was originally intended is not a bad thing.

Remember, it was a "loophole" in the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts that spurred gay marriage to a reality in this country.

Some might even say it was a "loophole" for people with the breast cancer gene to have their top surgery covered by insurance under the guise of preventative health.

Looking at something with a fresh set of eyes has led to many positive changes.

It also is imperative for us to remember that even tho we use an umbrella to describe ourselves, the rain doesnt effect us all equally.

Like it or not, the reality is, in a predominately hetero appearing society, regardless of how we get there, male-female couplings lead to instantaneous rights and privileges.

Same sex couples have made inroads but we do not have the same rights and privileges across the board. We still face an uphill battle for equity on local, state, and federal levels.

Equity will come when marriage is just marriage. As long as a distinction is made for same sex or gay marriage, there will be inequality. On the most basic of levels, do bakeries refuse to make wedding cakes for couples they perceive to be hetero?

Because of our differences we might have the need to pull this apart, and to analyze it based on our own political leanings and interests. Perfectly understandable cuz it does mean something different to different groups overall.

Yet, I havent seen anything in these stories about this couple that says they were disingenuous to their authentic selves. That says a lot to me.

[BrutalDaddy]

Originally Posted by vagina

Personally, my feeling is that this perfectly describes the transgender community or movement.

I know Linus already asked but this post really has me confused so could you please clarify on this statement? I'd greatly appreciate it.


Thanks,
Brute.

[SirenManda]

Originally Posted by vagina

Personally, my feeling is that this perfectly describes the transgender community or movement.

Where I agree with many points listed, I can't understand how one persons actions speak for a entire community. People have their own thoughts and opinions, two people can walk the same path but have different experiences.


The problem is this couple was on Oprah, therefor has some pop culture impressions that can be long lasting on those who blindly listen/watch tv shows without question (remember when Oprah went off about beef and got sued?) which happens more than we'd like to think. Does Chaz Bono speak for every transgender individual? Of coarse not. But many will view one famous persons journey as a format for many others. Being transgender isn't a choice, I don't know anyone who ever felt like transitioning wasn't saving their life.

[DapperButch]

Originally Posted by MandaGlamour

Where I agree with many points listed, I can't understand how one persons actions speak for a entire community. People have their own thoughts and opinions, two people can walk the same path but have different experiences.


The problem is this couple was on Oprah, therefor has some pop culture impressions that can be long lasting on those who blindly listen/watch tv shows without question (remember when Oprah went off about beef and got sued?) which happens more than we'd like to think. Does Chaz Bono speak for every transgender individual? Of coarse not. But many will view one famous persons journey as a format for many others. Being transgender isn't a choice, I don't know anyone who ever felt like transitioning wasn't saving their life.

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.

[Gemme]

Originally Posted by dykeumentary

Just a friendly reminder, because I know that we all want to be good people here-

Please lets not use expressions like "having a screw loose" or "ordering a psych consult" when we mean to say that we don't agree/understand someone's decision.
The mental health industrial complex has been used as a weapon against GLBT and gender-noncomforming people for years. The stigma of "being crazy" also keeps people who need mental health care from getting it.

Thanks! Now back to lively debate!

Originally Posted by dykeumentary

I'm speaking as a person who had an involuntary inpatient hospitalization to treat what the doctors saw as gender issues, I'm speaking as a niece of a man who was forced to undergo shock therapy treatments to "cure" his homosexuality, I'm speaking as a friend of a 25 year-old lesbian who killed herself when she need needed help, but was too embarassed to get it.

Maybe I should have just saiid "holy shit- that's offensive!" but I tried to be nice.
Is the better response to flag a post? I don't know.

.

Originally Posted by aishah

(also thanks dykeumentary for putting words to the ableism of casual comments about people's mental health states. it upset me too.)

I apologize if my words genuinely offended anyone.

However.....

I say this as someone who's mother suffered from paranoid schizophrenia for decades and did things like drag me out of grade school to hitchhike halfway across the country to go meet the president, which put us both in traumatic and dangerous situations and I wound up being held back due to the amount of time I was kept out of school. I've personally dealt with seasonal depression as well.

I think it's safe to say that most people have been touched by mental health issues in one form or another and some of us, like Anya and Dapper, actually work in the profession.

That said, this offended me.

Just a friendly reminder, because I know that we all want to be good people here-

You have no idea what I want and to insinuate that I'm a bad person because I said 'has a screw loose' feels like a shaming attempt.

Sorry.

I have no shame.

Fail.

I stand by my previous post. I certainly admit I could have used different verbiage, though.

[aishah]

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.

[dykeumentary]

Originally Posted by Gemme

You have no idea what I want and to insinuate that I'm a bad person because I said 'has a screw loose' feels like a shaming attempt.

Sorry.

I have no shame.

Fail.

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.

[imperfect_cupcake]

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.

[Gemme]

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

Originally Posted by dykeumentary

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.

There were only TWO people that made comments that fit what you rallied against. Anya and myself, so yeah. It was personal.

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.

First, free speech allows me the 'permission' to say whatever I'd like. Granted, just because someone can SAY something doesn't mean they SHOULD. Westboro, anyone?

I brought up my personal experience because your post read like 'this has been my experience and so that makes it perfectly fine for me to pass judgment on what you said'. You are not an island unto itself. Like I said, mental health affects all of us and most of us have had experience, either directly or indirectly, so we all have the same right to speak out about it, one way or another.

I wasn't saying "I don't agree". I was saying that, given the information I had at that time, I felt that maybe one or both of them could benefit from some professional help because the line drawn between 'problem' and 'solution' didn't feel logical to me. It felt belittling to those who actually have to struggle and work towards a transition and not just 'opt' to do it. As others have since said, it could very well be the propaganda and the media's approach to it. Or not. It felt like they were saying that Jacki's choice was the easiest to make.

Actually, most people could benefit from professional help in the mental health field. Life is stressful.

So you are a lawyer? It's my understanding that medical professionals can speak publicly and clearly about anything that's a public case. The line is drawn when it's one of their own patients. That's doctor-patient confidentiality and would certainly prohibit a doctor from discussing their personal patient's case and history.

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.

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.

[GraffitiBoi]

Originally Posted by vagina

Personally, my feeling is that this perfectly describes the transgender community or movement.

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.

[Girl_On_Fire]

Originally Posted by GraffitiBoi

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.

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.

[imperfect_cupcake]

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.

[candy_coated_bitch]

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.

[BullDog]

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

[Girl_On_Fire]

Originally Posted by candy_coated_bitch

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.

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.