Wednesday, 30 April 2008

Today's Battle

Actually, more like then last week's battles.

There's the issue of same-sex marriage over at Feministe. Will TS and IS people be prevented from marrying at all as part of a trade-off to get same-sex marriage legalised?

There's the defence of the Day of Silence over at Wake up America, where I attempt to give some right-wingers some sleepless nights by pointing out a few facts that would never have occurred to them.

A re-visit to the Transphobic RadFems over at Buried Alive, where I take on a transphobic victim of Kallmann's syndrome (an Intersex condition) who doesn't want the trannies sharing his victimology.

Legal Absurdities at Queer Cents, and the legal and financial complications that can result in so many areas when someone transitions.

I didn't quote it, but this is apposite:
Urging the United States Supreme Court to tackle the issue in 2000, lawyers for Christie Lee Littleton, a Texas male-to-female transsexual suing her husband's doctors for wrongful death, noted the
confused landscape: "Taking this situation to its logical conclusion, Mrs. Littleton, while in San Antonio, Texas, is a male and has a void marriage; as she travels to Houston, Texas, and enters federal property, she is female and a widow; upon traveling to Kentucky she is female and a widow; but, upon entering Ohio, she is once again male and prohibited from marriage; entering Connecticut, she is again
female and may marry; if her travel takes her north to Vermont, she is male and may marry a female; if instead she travels south to New Jersey, she may marry a male."

The Supreme Court declined to take the case.
It gets even more complicated when the jurisdictions involve not just different states, but different nations. The whole thing is a mess. As I wrote:
God alone knows what the situation would be if I moved to the US. Currently I think I’d be regarded as a married male, a married female, an unmarried female, or neither male nor female, depending on the state (and sometimes county).

And finally a serve to the Pharisees over at Faith and Freedom.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

i'm disappointed the supreme court refused to take the case.

they are going to take a hiding from just about everyone for changing the status quo, but a decision needed to be made to clarify important legal issues.

Nick K.D Chaleunphone said...

Maybe because the transgender community and their trans activist are too keen to co-opt the intersex community.

I speak up for the intersex community because I'm not going to let some transgender or some trans activist co-opt the intersex without a fight. I know that every trans out their want to co-opt the intersex and use that so called HBS excuse to get in to intersex groups and space.

Zoe Brain said...

Welcome Nick! Good to have you here. Much as it's nice to have lots of people who agree with me, it's more useful to have some that don't. I learn things from them.

So, to start the ball rolling, what's your definition of "Intersex"?

The one I prefer is "Someone whose body is neither 100% male nor 100% female", so Kallmanns Syndrome, in fact, any form of hypogonadism would qualify. Over to you.

Nick K.D Chaleunphone said...

Well for me, I base one what's considered intersex from scientific and DNA stand point.

Well for me, Intersex is defined by genetics and DNA, not by what someone thinks they have or what's not proven by the scientific community. So intersex is strictly defined by DNA and by genetics.

See i prefer things on a DNA level and not on a physical level