tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5573426.post359989680775873350..comments2024-02-20T15:17:48.594+11:00Comments on A.E.Brain: Withholding the Franchise - Highly SuspectZoe Brainhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13712045376060102538noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5573426.post-31190238580546302802010-02-28T18:36:03.232+11:002010-02-28T18:36:03.232+11:00"The facts contained in the original birth ce..."The facts contained in the original birth certificate were true and accurate, and the words contained in the amended certificate are not binding on this court."<br /><br />In other words: We accept the original birth certificate, but we can't/won't deal with the amended one.Justine Valinottihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10852069587181432102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5573426.post-66034708168352445732010-02-25T18:42:17.733+11:002010-02-25T18:42:17.733+11:00M.Italiano - that was the Corbett case. In Little...M.Italiano - that was the Corbett case. In Littleton vs Prange (see previous comments for source):<br /><br /><i>(5) The male chromosomes do not change with either hormonal treatment or sex reassignment surgery. Biologically a post-operative female transsexual is still a male.</i><br /><br /><i>At the time of birth, Christie was a male, both anatomically and genetically.</i><br /><br />Note from the application to the SCOTUS:<br /><br /><i>Next, the Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourth District, after ignoring the stipulated medical evidence, imposed its own "test" based on postulated genetic chromosome information. Yet, neither Mrs. Littleton nor her deceased husband ever had a chromosome test. Thus, by granting and upholding Summary Judgment based on the aforementioned non-testing, and by assuming that the deceased Mr. Littleton was XY and Mrs. Littleton is also XY, the lower courts are requiring Mrs. Littleton to test herself and reveal that information in violation of Texas statutory public policy.</i>Zoe Brainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13712045376060102538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5573426.post-56794194126105965072010-02-25T18:36:24.081+11:002010-02-25T18:36:24.081+11:00Henry Hall - it's not a matter of "gettin...Henry Hall - it's not a matter of "getting her paperwork in order.".<br /><br />From the judgment, available <a href="http://christielee.net/file1a.htm" rel="nofollow">here</a> : <br /><br /><i> Christie was created and born a male. Her original birth certificate, an official document of Texas, clearly so states. During the pendency of this suit, Christie amended the original birth certificate to change the sex and name. Under section 191.029 of the Texas Health and Safety Code she was entitled to seek such an amendment if the record was "incomplete or proved by satisfactory evidence to be inaccurate." Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. ยง 191.029 (Vernon 1992). The trial court that granted the petition to amend the birth certificate necessarily construed the term "inaccurate" to relate to the present, and having been presented with the uncontroverted affidavit of an expert stating that Christie is a female, the trial court deemed this satisfactory to prove an inaccuracy. However, the trial court's role in considering the petition was a ministerial one. It involved no fact-finding or consideration of the deeper public policy concerns presented. No one claims the information contained in Christie's original birth certificate was based on fraud or error. We believe the legislature intended the term "inaccurate" in section 191.028 to mean inaccurate as of the time the certificate was recorded; that is, at the time of birth. At the time of birth, Christie was a male, both anatomically and genetically. The facts contained in the original birth certificate were true and accurate, and the words contained in the amended certificate are not binding on this court. There are some things we cannot will into being. They just are.<br /><br />Conclusion<br /><br /><b>We hold, as a matter of law, that Christie Littleton is a male</b>. As a male, Christie cannot be married to another male. Her marriage to Jonathon was invalid, and she cannot bring a cause of action as his surviving spouse.</i><br /><br />Not "was a male at the time of the marriage". <b>Is</b> a male, as a matter of law if not fact. Moreover, that the Birth certificate should not have been changed, though no order was made to revert it.Zoe Brainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13712045376060102538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5573426.post-67859969780883886882010-02-25T12:00:20.722+11:002010-02-25T12:00:20.722+11:00Zoe wrote,
"Neither did the court consider ...Zoe wrote,<br /> "Neither did the court consider such situations as this one:<br />A 46,XY mother who developed as a normal woman underwent spontaneous puberty, reached menarche, menstruated regularly, experienced two unassisted pregnancies, and gave birth to a 46,XY daughter with complete gonadal dysgenesis. - J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2008 Jan;93(1):182-9. Epub 2007<br />Anyone with 46XY chromosomes had to be male, and anyone who looked male at birth had to have 46XY chromosomes."<br /><br />///But that wasn't the case. The court in the Littleton case didn't look into that because it was a case of transsexualism and not intersex that was being litigated./// <br /><br />Zoe wrote,<br />"Democrat 4th Circuit Appeal Judge Phil Hardberger went further though: <br />Citing Corbett v. Corbett, 2 All. E.R. 33 (P.1970), an English case, the Texas court concluded that 'the biological sexual constitution of an individual is fixed at birth (at the latest), and cannot be changed, either by the natural development of organs of the opposite sex, or by medical or surgical means.'<br />Thus those men with 5ARD who were born looking female, remain so, even if their genitalia changes so much as to enable them to father children.<br /><br />///That's not the case either. 3 tests as present at birth (chromosomal, gonadal and genital tests) were used to deterimine sex in the Corbett case. When all 3 were congruent at birth, sex was deciding accordingly and one was to ignore any operative intervention" BUT, when all 3 criteria were not congruent as in intersex, Judge Ormrod said that the genital criteria would likely be given greater weight than either the chromosomal or gonadal sex. That is why the case of W vs. W decided that a person who was of male sex with XY chromosomes, testes, no female organs and a micropenis could be declared to change to a female after surgery.M Italianonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5573426.post-53234668541347025672010-02-25T05:21:53.367+11:002010-02-25T05:21:53.367+11:00As to the Christie Littleton case, as I recall it,...As to the Christie Littleton case, as I recall it, what the court said, in effect, was "At the time of her marriage, at the place of her marriage and for the purpose of her marriage, her legal sex was male. Therefore we hold the marriage to be invalid. We acknowledge that at a later time and in different places her legal sex was female and that she very well may be biologically and medically female, but that was not the issue at dispute.". <br /><br />You might say Christie was punished for failing to get her legal sex paperwork fixed before the marriage (she did later on it seems). We are none of us perfect, we don't always do the wisest thing, we do the best we can as we see it at the time, she doubtless had her reasons, pressures and understandings.<br /><br />It is really important that people realize that legal sex, biological sex and medical sex are all different things. <br /><br />Many of the problems that transsexual people face arises out of a failure by doctors to realize that medical sex (which is strictly dimorphic) is not the same as biological (aka scientific) sex (which is bimodal and in near infinite variety).<br /><br />Henry HallAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5573426.post-10828370239613158702010-02-24T11:22:26.544+11:002010-02-24T11:22:26.544+11:00Here's a site which explains roughly how the U...<a href="http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/epcscrutiny.htm" rel="nofollow">Here</a>'s a site which explains roughly how the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on scrutiny. Basically, strict scrutiny has only been applied by the U.S. Supreme Court to Race, National Origin, Religion, or Alienage. Gender would be under middle-tier scrutiny (which is weaker than strict scrutiny, but stronger than rational basis review). <br /><br />In any case, the next path that may significantly reduce the legality of this sort of behavior in the U.S.A. is the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which will likely pass the House, but may get stalled in the Senate. There are several groups trying to lobby enough Senators to get votes of cloture passed, including this <a href="http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/15300/get-to-dc-on-316-to-lobby-for-enda-scholarships-available" rel="nofollow">one</a>. Note that it wouldn't be a complete solution, but it would help a lot of people.Zimbelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5573426.post-88552298542727713552010-02-24T10:16:15.699+11:002010-02-24T10:16:15.699+11:00But, Zoe, you're forgetting the most important...But, Zoe, you're forgetting the most important part. By "deciding" to be transsexual, you waive your right to personhood. And we all know that the intersexed are just the way they are because they're deviants. It's just preemptive judgment from God.Venehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04252114756864644059noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5573426.post-31657175069578142742010-02-24T09:51:55.192+11:002010-02-24T09:51:55.192+11:00No it doesn't. Within the framework of the law...No it doesn't. Within the framework of the law, they can implement whatever religious beliefs they want, and do, all the time.<br /><br />e.g. in Loving vs Virginia: the trial judge in the case, Leon Bazile proclaimed that<br /><br /><i>"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."</i><br /> <br />That was in 1960, but similar statements are made all the time in US courts in the South and in the Bible Belt. It's how Judges get elected.Zoe Brainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13712045376060102538noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5573426.post-11287625589508066622010-02-24T04:05:30.984+11:002010-02-24T04:05:30.984+11:00And nobody challenged the court's decision on ...And nobody challenged the court's decision on First Amendment grounds? Or does "Regarding the establishment of religion) not apply to the judiciary?mythusmagehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10458869083534878283noreply@blogger.com