Because the state prohibits same-sex marriages, Terry and Winstanley's bid for a quick Milwaukee County Courthouse wedding last week was derailed until a hearing could be convened to investigate, even though County Clerk Mark Ryan accepted their marriage-license application as valid.If you read the article at the link you may be influenced by the fact that Terry served a prison sentence for raping a woman and was denied a request to transfer to a woman's prison. You may also want to take into account that various courts have decided that it's the sex recorded on the birth certificate that counts. And according to lawprof Arthur S. Leonard the "transsexual legal movement" would celebrate if the court decided that Terry couldn't marry, because they want legal recognition for the reassigned sex.
"They came in and applied just like anyone else would," said Ryan, who accepted the application after the couple paid the regular $100 fee and swore they were eligible to marry under state law.
Ryan said that Terry was able to produce a birth certificate listing the name Ronald and the gender as male. However, staff in his office thought the couple appeared to be two women - and noticed that Terry had to start over in filling out the form.
On the first try, Terry had written "Barbara Lynn Terry" where the form says "Bride."
UPDATE: The judge decides Terry is a man and can therefore marry a woman.
Posts
19 comments:
The problem with the transsexual “movement” does not start when a person surgically altered applies for a marriage license. It is not commonly known, but mainstream medical establishments have discontinued this practice.
“Quite clearly, then, we psychiatrists should work to discourage those adults who seek surgical sex reassignment. When Hopkins announced that it would stop doing these procedures in adults with sexual dysphoria, many other hospitals followed suit, but some medical centers still carry out this surgery.” 1
(1) Paul McHugh is University Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University.
The entire article can be found at http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=398&var_recherche=gender+surgery
It strikes me as common sense that we as a society should help and encourage those who feel they require such surgery to learn to live with the sex they are born to. Rather than offer a permanent and unsatisfactory mutilation.
"The transsexual legal movement would hail that result," he said.
Sad, but he may be right, given today's absolutist rights climate.
In The World According to Garp a former Philadelphia Eagle named Roberta Muldoon has this surgery done and it's entirely approved of within the narrative -- Garp's son eventually "marries" a trans-sexual, and this too is considered a positive, especially because Garp's son Duncan never wanted children. Somehow I still think "ability to have children" should be considered as it's the greatest blessing.
"Paul McHugh is University Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University."
Using Paul McHugh as the voice of the "mainstream medical establishment" on transsexual surgery is the equivalent of saying Jonathan Alder (Competitive Enterprise Institute) is the voice of the "mainstream environmental movement.". McHugh is a darling of the religious right, and is on par with groups like NARTH.
It is an outright LIE to say that "mainstream medical establishments have discontinued this practice." The Harry Benjamin Standards of Care is the accepted standard of treatment by most of the "mainstream medical establishment".
It states that:
"Sex Reassignment is Effective and Medically Indicated in Severe GID. In persons diagnosed with transsexualism or profound GID, sex reassignment surgery, along with hormone therapy and real life experience, is a treatment that has proven to be effective. Such a therapeutic regimen, when prescribed or recommended by qualified practitioners, is medically indicated and medically necessary. Sex reassignment is not "experimental," "investigational," "elective," "cosmetic," or optional in any meaningful sense. It constitutes very effective and appropriate treatment for transsexualism or profound GID."
Offering up that sex reassignment surgery is an "unsatisfactory mutilation" flies in the face of a hundred years of research and 50 years of genital reassignment surgery. The fact is that the majority of people that have SRS have a positive result (less than 2% have "serious regret"). What other mental illness treatment has a success rate of 98%?
"In The World According to Garp..."
In case you haven't heard, that book is found under FICTION.
"If not, which sex would you impose on the person?"
I think the question is, why do you need to impose a sex on anyone? The argument that marriage is for the production and continued stability of children is ludicrous to the point of being laughable. One only need to point to the divorce statistics to see what an utter failure heterosexual marriage has become.
Of course the "transsexual legal movement" would celebrate a legal recognition for their reassigned sex. If someone is willing to give up their reproductive ability (never mind the pain and expense of surgery) to have inner peace, don't you think that's a high enough price to pay for "recognition"?
The truth is that there is little solid ground on the "science" of transsexuality. Rush Limbaugh has said you should always "follow the money" when looking at the bottom line of a liberal cause. I'd ask that you "follow the outcomes" of patients treated under McHugh verses the those that follow the HBSOC, when looking at the bottom line of sexual reassignment surgery.
I'm not claiming to be biased on this belief. I'm a pre-operative M2F transsexual. I started hormones in September of 2001. Six years out, I am the happiest I've been in my life. I am focused, centered, and in control of my life. Legal recognition won't validate my decision, but it will allow me to integrate back into society in a productive manner.
"Terry" as IT prefers to be called
If it wouldn't be too much of a strain, Cedarford, try for five minutes not to be a complete moron. Human beings are never referred to as "it" in the English language. Human beings are referred to as "she" (if female) or "he" (if male or if gender is unknown or unspecified). More recently "they" has come into vogue as a gender-neutral singular pronoun, but "it" is still completely out of bounds.
So either (a) you didn't know this simple fact of English, in which case you're subliterate, or (b) you're not following it because you don't think this person deserves to be treated as a human, in which case you're a sick little fucker. In either case, do us all a favor and shut the hell up.
Because we all now that the Founders dreamed and hoped for the day when changing social mores and emenations of the penumbra of what was actually written would finally give an ex-rapist transvestite the right to marry an illegal alien.
Ben Franklin shacked up with another man's wife so he'd have someone to raise the bastard child he'd had with a hooker. Many of the slave-owning Founders, including Jefferson, had sex with their slaves -- something that could quite reasonably be called rape, as the women had no choice in the matter, but was in any case considered highly deviant and immoral by the society of the time.
So the notion that our Founders were upstanding figures who would be shocked, SHOCKED by people who flaunt conventional sexual mores is just stupid. So again, please -- stop talking. You're making everyone to the right of Reality Check look bad.
(PS: Since when does "from Australia" mean "illegal immigrant"? What'd she do, swim here?)
Cedarford is owned! Well done, Rev.
Just a sidenote: the singular "they" is returning, not emerging. That usage can be found in texts going back to the 13th century. If our linguist is reading, tell me, was it Aristotelian logic that pushed it out of use? Or am I thinking of the double negative as emphasis?
Also, in most style books, not even an animal is referred to as "it," if said animal has a name that is mentioned in the story.
""If not, which sex would you impose on the person?" I think the question is, why do you need to impose a sex on anyone? "
Well, that's why there was my question before the "if not." I really don't get why you are acting like you're introducing a question I haven't thought of!
Just a sidenote: the singular "they" is returning, not emerging. That usage can be found in texts going back to the 13th century.
Hm, neat. Although the 13th century was still Middle English, and not really the same language we speak today.
Beth,
I'm not the official linguist but I believe "they" as a singular pronoun was banished in the 18th century when pedants decided to impose Latin rules on English. We get other gems like "don't end a sentence with a proposition" from that movement, too, if I'm not mistaken.
I'm also not an expert on TS but I've known some would be TSes. What they described to me was sheer physical agony. On the other hand, there's this warning from Dan Bunten/Dani Berry.
And as long as I'm waxing on subjects I know little about, wouldn't this just be a matter of whether the state respect SRS? If SRS means your sex changes in the eyes of the law, then you're out of luck if you want to marry someone of the same sex and the law doesn't like that. Yes?
Rev, you're right; it's found in the Canturbury Tales, which isn't our English. But it's also found, as Blake notes, up through the 18th century. The English of the 1500s and 1600s is familiar to us, particularly once the printing press comes around and makes it appealing to standardize spelling.
Rev, do you see a theme in Cedarford? So far we have "gay anal sex" and an instruction for you do place something "right up your ass." When will Fen pop in with his wound fetish?
"...dusky meat"? Sweet Jesus. He's decompensating. Everyone stand clear.
And cover your ass.
"Using Paul McHugh as the voice of the "mainstream medical establishment" on transsexual surgery is the equivalent of saying Jonathan Alder (Competitive Enterprise Institute) is the voice of the "mainstream environmental movement.". McHugh is a darling of the religious right, and is on par with groups like NARTH."
I don’t know about this need to demonize professionals and their opinions. I have no reason to discount this or any other medical professional’s opinion. I don’t know what constitutes being a "darling of the religious right" or why you think that disqualifies someone? The mainstream medical establishment cannot adopt a “standard of care” for a procedure it no longer accepts as medically sound.
Also- NARTH is a professional organization with multiple well qualified and respected members.
"Paul McHugh is a man who has a personal disdain for the whole subject of Transsexualism. He operates from this deep hatred using very slimy "scientific research" to substantiate his beliefs."
I find this to be ill-liberal and anti-intellectual. It is par for the coarse however.
Obviously people who have undergone such treatments have a very high emotional stake in the efficacy of such procedures. Dr. McHugh has no such attachment either way. No one has discredited him with anything but ad homonym. When at John Hopkins he presided over the discontinuation of such surgery. Needless to say, this is a prestigious institution in medicine.
I am aware of no medical evidence that one can be born into the wrong body and that ones genitalia can be described as a “birth defect”. Human sexuality exists on the level of chromosomes and transcends amputation.
I find this to be ill-liberal and anti-intellectual. It is par for the coarse however.
Fitz, it is a fact that Paul McHugh's opinions are unrepresentative of mainstream medical and psychiatric beliefs. It is also true that he has a lot of personal issues with homosexuality and transsexuality that are unrelated to his job as a scientist. Finally, it is true that he tends to use emotionally overwrought language when discussing gender reassignment surgery (e.g. referring to it as "mutilation") that real scientists refrain from using.
You are welcome to your personal belief that McHugh's beliefs represent true science and his opponents are the anti-intellectuals. But there's no supporting evidence for that claim.
"It"?
"Dusky meat"?
In three words, where the Althouse comments threads seem to be converging.
What a shame.
What a loss.
First Reverent claims…
“it is a fact that Paul McHugh's opinions are unrepresentative of mainstream medical and psychiatric beliefs. It is also true that he has a lot of personal issues(???) with homosexuality and transsexuality that are unrelated to his job as a scientist. Finally, it is true that he tends to use emotionally overwrought language when discussing gender reassignment surgery (e.g. referring to it as "mutilation") that real scientistsrefrain from using.”
Then Reverent asks me.
“But there's no supporting evidence for that claim.”
Were is the “supporting evidence” for your claims (above) concerning Dr. McHugh?
Fitz wrote: "Human sexuality exists on the level of chromosomes and transcends amputation."
And that is precisely where the problem lies! The birth defect is typically chromosonal rather than emotional. Think of it as a genital cleft palate.
Trey
Post a Comment