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

[imperfect_cupcake]

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.

[DapperButch]

Originally Posted by honeybarbara

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.

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.

[Andrea]

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?

[*Anya*]

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

[imperfect_cupcake]

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.

[Kobi]

The complexities in this situation keep unfolding. Much food for thought and many questions come to mind as the discussion unfolds.

How anything is interpreted is based a lot on how it is introduced. The name of this thread is such that it skews one's thinking of its intent into a certain area of thought.

The media does the same kind of playing with words to make or create a snippet to pique readers attention. The actual story may or may not bear any resemblance to the title, nor supply enough accurate facts to justify the title.

Much is unknown here. Thus, being human, we try to fill in the blanks based on our own perceptions and bias and needs.

Dapper has been very clear in reiterating the "actions" Jacki took and continues to take. The actions may indicate one thing. However, when you factor in the use of the pronoun she and the title of wife, it gets confusing.

We are a community which prides itself on diversity. We are BIG on diversity. Yet, in action, like in this situation, our definition of diversity indicates we have a much narrower view on what diversity is and what it should look like.

The suggestion has been made that this couple had other choices. One of those choices was to "take the easy route" and move to a state that recognizes same sex marriage. The overall goal of the actions here was to have the same rights and privileges as are automatically granted to hetero marriages.

Same sex marriage, even where legal, does not do this. We still have to fight for these rights and privileges. We still have to depend on politicians to foster equality into the laws. And, we have to hope the political tide doesnt shift and work to undo what has already been done. Think the republican war on women.

The other suggestion was this couple should have waited until the same sex marriage issue was resolved in their state. Same problem arises. The marriage laws are not applied equally thus waiting solves nothing.

Personally, I have a bias in situations like this when one group with privilege tells another without privilege, they just have to wait. It brings me back to the 1800's when the slaves were fighting for freedom and women were fighting for the right to vote. They teamed up and spoke to each other bonds of slavery as their common ground. Yet, when the right to vote was on the table for emancipated men of color, and the suffragettes begged them to fight for the inclusion of women in this bill, it was Frederick Douglass who told women "they would have to wait their turn". Their turn came 100 years later. Male privilege trumped a common cause.

That leads to my next point. I am hearing it said in different ways how this couples journey trivializes the personal/legal/medical journey of trans persons. I dont see this but I am also not a trans person and may not understand the intricacies involved.

What I do find myself wondering, is if there is an issue of trivializing the trans process or if it is more a case of trivializing the outcome. That male marker is the validation of male/man/manhood and all the rights and privileges that go along with that status.

So, is this couple trivializing the trans journey or are they challenging the definition of manhood and all the perks that come along with the marker?

Does someone who has changed their marker but not their pronoun undermine the concept of male? Does someone who has changed their marker but is still comfortable using the title of wife, undermine the concept of husband?

Is the issue perhaps that this couple, in not providing answers one way or another, is really:

1. living proof of what diversity really looks like?
2. forcing us to look at our own biases and prejudices?
3. a reminder that we do not have to reinvent the wheel for change to occur?
4. walk the talk is an action not a philosophy?

Much to ponder.

[Kelt]

Originally Posted by DapperButch

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.

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...

[Words]

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

[Kelt]

Originally Posted by Words

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.

[Corkey]

I don't understand one thing. How can we sit back and make judgements upon a person we don't know. I sure have been through some judgements from this community in the past ( not seen as the gender I am). What gives us the right to pronounce upon another Queer person? Her decision is really none of our business. What she calls herself is none of our business, how she relates to her wife is none of our business. Thought provoking though it may be we are not in any position to make pronouncements on another Humans journey.

.10

[Girl_On_Fire]

Originally Posted by Corkey

I don't understand one thing. How can we sit back and make judgements upon a person we don't know. I sure have been through some judgements from this community in the past ( not seen as the gender I am). What gives us the right to pronounce upon another Queer person? Her decision is really none of our business. What she calls herself is none of our business, how she relates to her wife is none of our business. Thought provoking though it may be we are not in any position to make pronouncements on another Humans journey.

.10

I feel like I'm beating a dead horse here.

My irritation at this comes from the way the couple is representing an entire community. Not themselves or their love or their relationship.

I am not and was not judging them as people. Whether it was the show or the article or a combination of both, something rubbed me (and a lot of others) the wrong way. It just didn't sit right that the description of transgender was somehow reduced to a "loophole" to get married. I don't think it should have been minimized like that.

Was it their right? Of course. It's their life. It's just upsetting to me that this will be the take-away for so many people who grossly misunderstand GLBT culture.

If queer people are truly to be accepted, the media needs to focus less on stories that marginalize and more on the lives and the common, everyday struggles of queer couples and relationships.

It's like the pictures in the paper from pride events that depict only the 6-foot-tall screaming drag queen in a pink feather boa and completely ignore the loving hugs, hand-holding, kissing, and celebrating among couples that makes up the other 90% of the event.

I think media coverage like that is a sneaky way of marginalizing by focusing on the extreme. Eventually, this is the automatic picture an uneducated person has in their head in relation to the queer community.

It only makes them cling tighter to their prejudice beliefs.

[aishah]

Girl_on_Fire, i think some of the disagreement comes from the issue that - is it really this couple's responsibility to bear the burden of representing an entire community? i don't necessarily see that they were trying to do that. yes, people may take it like that, and certainly the mainstream media profits off of exploiting people's stories in that way, but is that actually the fault of the couple themselves?

i personally tend to lean towards the argument that that burden should be on the transphobic world we live in and the way mainstream media screws up representations of trans people, if only because trans folks whose stories are in the media do not necessarily get to control how they are represented. in this case oprah, and the prejudices of our society that turn every single media event into a monolithic representation of an entire community, are what is at fault. the couple has no control over the fact that that is how the media, and our society, respond to any representation of trans folks.

[Corkey]

[QUOTE=Girl_On_Fire;921984]I feel like I'm beating a dead horse here.

My irritation at this comes from the way the couple is representing an entire community. Not themselves or their love or their relationship. They can't because they are two people,

I am not and was not judging them as people. Whether it was the show or the article or a combination of both, something rubbed me (and a lot of others) the wrong way. It just didn't sit right that the description of transgender was somehow reduced to a "loophole" to get married. I don't think it should have been minimized like that. That is a judgement of them.
Was it their right? Of course. It's their life. It's just upsetting to me that this will be the take-away for so many people who grossly misunderstand GLBT culture. There are worse representations.

If queer people are truly to be accepted, the media needs to focus less on stories that marginalize and more on the lives and the common, everyday struggles of queer couples and relationships.
Oprah is a has been, she isn't on most television stations any longer.
It's like the pictures in the paper from pride events that depict only the 6-foot-tall screaming drag queen in a pink feather boa and completely ignore the loving hugs, hand-holding, kissing, and celebrating among couples that makes up the other 90% of the event. I'm glad that "screaming drag queen" has a voice.

I think media coverage like that is a sneaky way of marginalizing by focusing on the extreme. Eventually, this is the automatic picture an uneducated person has in their head in relation to the queer community. Ignorant people will always be ignorant.

It only makes them cling tighter to their prejudice beliefs.

The media will paint anyone with a broad brush. What I found in this thread is Queers judging another Queer.

[Kobi]

Originally Posted by Girl_On_Fire

I feel like I'm beating a dead horse here.

My irritation at this comes from the way the couple is representing an entire community. Not themselves or their love or their relationship.

I am not and was not judging them as people. Whether it was the show or the article or a combination of both, something rubbed me (and a lot of others) the wrong way. It just didn't sit right that the description of transgender was somehow reduced to a "loophole" to get married. I don't think it should have been minimized like that.

Was it their right? Of course. It's their life. It's just upsetting to me that this will be the take-away for so many people who grossly misunderstand GLBT culture.

If queer people are truly to be accepted, the media needs to focus less on stories that marginalize and more on the lives and the common, everyday struggles of queer couples and relationships.

It's like the pictures in the paper from pride events that depict only the 6-foot-tall screaming drag queen in a pink feather boa and completely ignore the loving hugs, hand-holding, kissing, and celebrating among couples that makes up the other 90% of the event.

I think media coverage like that is a sneaky way of marginalizing by focusing on the extreme. Eventually, this is the automatic picture an uneducated person has in their head in relation to the queer community.

It only makes them cling tighter to their prejudice beliefs.

Girl,

The media has a job to do, a product to sell. The media can transform anything into a 3 ring circus. Anything out of the ordinary or which can be made to look like it is out of the ordinary catches peoples attention. They will even fill up space using opinion and conjecture when "facts" are not available.

That is the reality of the media. And it is not just the mainstream media. I have seen some stuff in the queer presses and the feminist presses that are just as exploitative and annoying.

As long as there is a profit motive, whatever sells will be used. As much as we say we dont like it, the majority of people love other peoples drama. If they didnt, sensationalism wouldnt be used.

What we need to be careful not to do is to feed into the frenzy or to start pointing the finger of blame or shaming one another. None of these is at all helpful to us as a community or to educating those who are not part of our community. All of these are detrimental to us as individuals and as a whole.

To say this couple represents an entire community is erroneous. To say this couple has to present or explain themselves in a certain way or face the consequences, is not in anyone's best interest.

We are all fighting to be and live our authentic selves, whoever and however we choose, whether in private or in public. One can not be authentic if one has to live up to some arbitrary standard of acceptableness or someone else's standard of acceptable.

To say the media is at fault or that this couple should have done thus and so is a "yeah but" kind of thing. They have the right BUT. Either they have the right or they dont. There are no buts.

And this brings us back to diversity. Either we believe in diversity, free from our own needs to see it done a certain way, or we dont.