10 Responses to GENDA???????????

  1. Gwen says:

    Same-o, Same-o. When in need of assistance, they promise the moon and the stars. When the goal is reached, all promises are forgotten or outright denied. All hail the mighty Gay Inc!

  2. Gwen says:

    Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Enough said.

  3. Stephanie Stevens says:

    I’m still more than a bit perplexed (but not exactly surprised) at how my native state, New York, can be so far behind on this … thinking back to the late 60s and 70s there, I’d have thought that in 40 years this (GENDA) surely would be a done deal by now.

  4. The HRC has all the reason to celebrate a great victory in America for marriage equality. But it’s not in the Empire State. Not in New York! … TEXAS!!

    It was a most incredible victory for same-sex marriage rights when HRC activist Meghan Stabler married a woman in Texas in the first legal same-sex marriage there! Lesbians all over celebrated the happy couple!

    [Oops, I’m sorry. I just learned that Meghan, who is a post-operative transsexual woman had to legally identify as male in order to get married to a woman in Texas]

    Well, it’s still a great victory as it offers a new way to resolve the conflict in those 44 U.S states where same-sex marriage is forbidden by law!

    All that same sex couples have to do is have one person declare themselves to be transsexual and have their birth certificate changed to reflect their new legal sex– and then have a legal heterosexual marriage! Just one has to have some kind of a surgical procedure– but we all have to make sacrifices for someone we love! And the only other important decision is which one will make the change?

    Well, this might work in some of those 44 states.
    But in Texas– Houston we have a problem!

    In Texas, Meghan and other transsexual women who have had sex reassignment surgery (SRS) are not legally female as Texas refuses to recognize SRS changes to birth certificates as valid. Therefore all transsexual and transgender people are legally the sex of their birth- the one on their original birth certificate and that certificate is used as the basis for granting a legal marriage.

    I am certain that there is at least one Texas judge and probably one Federal judge who will say that this marriage is a sham of fraud and deception where Meghan is pretending to be a normal male to subvert the law and make a mockery of the citizens of Texas who have forbidden gay marriages.

    This means that if Texas says that Meghan is a male, then “he” is like a gay man pretending to be straight, yet some would argue that because of “his” chosen name and SRS, “he” cannot legally consummate a marriage with a woman. And that the marriage itself uses a loophole in Texas law that makes it appear to sanction a lesbian relationship between two people who in other jurisdictions are legally female by anatomy and by law. It is probably no more legal for any heterosexual couple to don dresses and get married as two brides just because the state has declared them to be of different sexes.

    But for all post-operative transsexuals in Texas there is a Catch 22 that may forbid anyone from getting married.

    A heterosexual postoperative transsexual woman cannot marry a man because she is declared to be legally male at birth and two males can’t get married.

    A lesbian postoperative transsexual woman cannot marry a woman as a woman, because two women can’t get married and the state regards one as not being a woman but a man. She can marry as a man but all she has to do is swallow her pride, her dignity and obliterate her identity as a woman and perhaps even detransition, just to live in Texas.

    And being legally declared to be male could mean being regarded as such– having to use men’s restrooms. If arrested and jailed to have to go to men’s facilities , or even required to serve in some kind of Texas militia as a man.

    If you carry the implications of this Catch 22 to the extremes- it would meant the only transsexuals to be legally certified in heterosexual couples would be one with a male-to-female and a female-to-male. The state of Texas may not know which sex they are now– but they certainly ain’t the same sex!

    Yes, it’s one small selfish victory for one person, and a giant slap in the face for all transsexual people in Texas and everywhere else. As for the HRC, they’re dancing in the streets of New York, knowing that they are safely about 1500 miles from the Texas border.

    And when the honeymoon is over, then perhaps Mr. & Mrs. Meghan Stabler will get back to the usual business of screwing transpeople over in New York and elsewhere, making sure to cut the GENDA out of their a”genda”s leaving them as “as”ses!

    But can all our transsexes live, love and marry in Texas?
    Or anywhere else where the HRC son (oops, sun) doesn’t shine?

    • valeriekeefe says:

      And here I thought it just undermined the stupidity of Texas marriage law… On behalf of all of us who aren’t desperate to assimilate, I apologize that a tryke wanted to marry her partner and that somehow that takes away the facsimile of cisness that some people are trying to manufacture.

      • sarasnavel says:

        This isn’t necessarily about anti-cis-assimilation, you know.

        There are trans people who need to assimilate; their identity matches that of many cis women who do not in any way see themselves outside the binary. That is, they strongly feel that association and anything else would be dishonest and contrived, for them.

        There are many other women, both cis and trans, that identify and socialize (meant to include everything from appearance and behavior choices to holding a personal philosophy closer to Second Wave Feminism) that do not believe the binary is natural or and should not be treated as biologically intrinsic. They strongly feel that association and anything else would be dishonest and contrived, for them.

        I tend to fight for the rights of both groups to live productive, happy lives free of interference. Where they conflict it sometimes takes a little teasing apart to figure out which side is doing good and which is doing harm. First step is to see if there really are two sides in reality or just the old Tx rivalry rearing it’s ugly, damaging head, again.

        The problem with Stabler’s action was that it harmed one group while remaining neutral to the other; the net gain was to Stabler and her political organization’s fight for same sex marriage at the expense of basic equality for transsexuals, transgender people and other non-assimilationists. Since Stabler’s net gain as enacted could’ve been accomplished by other means, without causing harm to others, it is neutralized. That leaves HRC as the only party with pure gain from this little exercise, and assimilation-preferred transwoman with the resulting harm of Stabler’s action. That makes it both morally and ethically bad (“evil”).

  5. sarasnavel says:

    (In case it wasn’t painfully obvious, “Tx rivalry” should’ve been, “TS/TG” or maybe, “T* rivalry”, so as not to be confused with, “Texas rivalry”. Whatever the * that is (sports, maybe? dunno).

    And, I didn’t mean to slight anyone who thinks that the middle position is also biological, it just wasn’t part of the discussion.)

  6. claire says:

    Wait a sec, in Texas they will not let you change your gender on legal documents even with SRS? cause if so then I’m screwed.

  7. Marilyn Pierce says:

    Texas will let you “Amend” your BC, but they always see you as your assigned at Birth status. Even if you are born in a different state or country.

  8. valeriekeefe says:

    I think it ought to be apparent that if a state is heterosexist and cissexist, (instead of an outright exterminationist, they simply hope that we’ll expire readily) then that state will have cis-trans heterosexual marriages… claiming that gleefully pointing out that the law is an ass in this regard doesn’t cost straight trans people rights, it points out that they are denied rights, just as this woman would be if her partner had been a trans woman.

    Also, it’d be easier for a coalition to form between the 23% of trans women who are straight and the rest of us if those who advocate for the aforementioned 23% didn’t seem to frequent sites like “TG Nonsense.” As though by moving the margin closer to themselves they become safer.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: