WTF Stories of the Week - Page 6

Strangler Lewis · 04-07-2008, 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BarTopDancer

If he didn't change anything "down there" then how can he legally be a man and legally married to a[nother] biological woman? I'm totally un-knowledgeable in this area.

What is the law in California on defining men and women for marriage? Military service? Affirmative action? Is it based on chromosomes? Parts?

alphabassettgrrl · 04-07-2008, 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BarTopDancer

If he didn't change anything "down there" then how can he legally be a man and legally married to a[nother] biological woman? I'm totally un-knowledgeable in this area.

Legal change of status required one of the three possible surgeries, and Thomas had his breasts removed. Genital surgery is not required (and often messes up more than it fixes).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cadaverous Pallor

The headline should have been "Transgender Person Pregnant."

I do agree there. Media sucks. A lot.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cadaverous Pallor

However, it would seem to me that if you want to remain a viable mother then you want to be a woman.

I think the issue was more of expediency than of wanting to be a mother. He wants to be a father. I think they would have difficulty adopting, so "being [his] own surrogate" is a sure way of ensuring parental rights in the future.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strangler Lewis

What is the law in California on defining men and women for marriage? Military service? Affirmative action? Is it based on chromosomes? Parts?

I think if we based gender status on chromosomes a lot of us would be very surprised. I'm not actually sure what the legal status is based on. I'm just glad I was born with the bits that match my sense of myself. Not everybody is so lucky.

alphabassettgrrl · 04-03-2008, 08:11 PM

The trans community is upset mostly by Tomas going public. They could lose a lot of ground from the public's fear in response to the pregnancy. Child custody, rights to transition, control over their lives and their right to live as they feel they need to.

My friend wrote the Advocate response. I'm proud of ... well, I know Levi as "her" but he prefers "him".

Cadaverous Pallor · 04-04-2008, 08:34 AM

The headline should have been "Transgender Person Pregnant."

It's hard to say "That person is a man" when that person actually has a uterus. This isn't a matter of being insensitive, it's a matter of fact. I'd say "That person identifies as a man".

However, it would seem to me that if you want to remain a viable mother then you want to be a woman. The idea that you can be both simultaneously just sounds like they don't really identify as anything and they want to play both sides. If that's the case, they shouldn't claim they identify as a man, they should claim that they identify as both, which is fine by me, really. It's none of my business whether he/she wants to be masculine, feminine, both, or asexual.

mousepod · 04-04-2008, 08:37 AM

With apologies to NA.

Morrigoon · 04-07-2008, 03:30 PM

Have you guys seen this yet? (video link)

Holy crap... a town of 1951 people, and they're removing over *400* children from this polygamy compound!

Here's the text story: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23993440/ (talks more about the polygamy arrests than what a big deal it is to remove a quarter of the population of a town and take them into state custody - which the video link does)

Alex · 04-07-2008, 04:17 PM

Can anybody point to more information about the initial call to authorities? So far I've not seen much detail but it sounds like they don't know who the girl is.

While I don't really approve of this group (I'm all for polygamy, just not polygamy involving children as the marrying parties) but putting hundreds of children and detaining scores of adults based on an anonymous phone call seems a bit of a stretch. So I'm hoping I just haven't seen that information.

Morrigoon · 04-07-2008, 04:26 PM

Because it involves sexual abuse of a minor, they can't release the name of the girl. The impression I get though is that they don't know (or haven't revealed) if they've found her.

The women who left did so of their own accord (to whatever extent "voluntarily" is, when authorities are involved).

The impression I get is that some of the underage "kids" removed have kids of their own, also removed. So I'd say there is sufficient evidence there.

Alex · 04-07-2008, 04:58 PM

The second article you linked to said the authorities were uncertain whether the girl in question was among those removed, which suggested to me they didn't know for sure who she was. But those paragraphs have now been rewritten to say they don't know where she is, which is less suggestive of the idea that they don't know who she is.

I'm not at all questioning whether they should be detained and removed (I'm pretty sure that is the case). It just seemed questionable from the reporting I'd seen what the underlying justification to go in was.

I'll eventually see the details. Unless they're only shown on Nancy Grace. Then I'll just have to live in ignorance.

Ghoulish Delight · 04-08-2008, 11:42 AM

Remind me not to marry her.

04-03-2008, 08:11 PM	#3
alphabassettgrrl Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 4,978	The trans community is upset mostly by Tomas going public. They could lose a lot of ground from the public's fear in response to the pregnancy. Child custody, rights to transition, control over their lives and their right to live as they feel they need to. My friend wrote the Advocate response. I'm proud of ... well, I know Levi as "her" but he prefers "him". __________________ Why cycling? Anything [sport] that had to do with a ball, I wasn't very good at. -Lance Armstrong
	Submit to Quotes

04-04-2008, 08:34 AM	#4
Cadaverous Pallor ohhhh baby Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Parental Bliss Posts: 12,364	The headline should have been "Transgender Person Pregnant." It's hard to say "That person is a man" when that person actually has a uterus. This isn't a matter of being insensitive, it's a matter of fact. I'd say "That person identifies as a man". However, it would seem to me that if you want to remain a viable mother then you want to be a woman. The idea that you can be both simultaneously just sounds like they don't really identify as anything and they want to play both sides. If that's the case, they shouldn't claim they identify as a man, they should claim that they identify as both, which is fine by me, really. It's none of my business whether he/she wants to be masculine, feminine, both, or asexual. __________________ The second star to the right shines in the night for you
	Submit to Quotes

04-04-2008, 08:37 AM	#5
mousepod You broke your Ramadar! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 4,635	With apologies to NA. __________________ "Give the public everything you can give them, keep the place as clean as you can keep it, keep it friendly" - Walt Disney
	Submit to Quotes

04-07-2008, 03:30 PM	#6
Morrigoon I throw stones at houses Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Location: Location Posts: 9,534	Have you guys seen this yet? (video link) Holy crap... a town of 1951 people, and they're removing over 400 children from this polygamy compound! Here's the text story: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23993440/ (talks more about the polygamy arrests than what a big deal it is to remove a quarter of the population of a town and take them into state custody - which the video link does) __________________ http://bash.org/?top "It is useless for sheep to pass a resolution in favor of vegetarianism while wolves remain of a different opinion." -- William Randolph Inge
	Submit to Quotes

04-07-2008, 04:17 PM	#7
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	Can anybody point to more information about the initial call to authorities? So far I've not seen much detail but it sounds like they don't know who the girl is. While I don't really approve of this group (I'm all for polygamy, just not polygamy involving children as the marrying parties) but putting hundreds of children and detaining scores of adults based on an anonymous phone call seems a bit of a stretch. So I'm hoping I just haven't seen that information.
	Submit to Quotes

04-07-2008, 04:26 PM	#8
Morrigoon I throw stones at houses Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Location: Location Posts: 9,534	Because it involves sexual abuse of a minor, they can't release the name of the girl. The impression I get though is that they don't know (or haven't revealed) if they've found her. The women who left did so of their own accord (to whatever extent "voluntarily" is, when authorities are involved). The impression I get is that some of the underage "kids" removed have kids of their own, also removed. So I'd say there is sufficient evidence there. __________________ http://bash.org/?top "It is useless for sheep to pass a resolution in favor of vegetarianism while wolves remain of a different opinion." -- William Randolph Inge
	Submit to Quotes

04-07-2008, 04:58 PM	#9
Alex . Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 13,354	The second article you linked to said the authorities were uncertain whether the girl in question was among those removed, which suggested to me they didn't know for sure who she was. But those paragraphs have now been rewritten to say they don't know where she is, which is less suggestive of the idea that they don't know who she is. I'm not at all questioning whether they should be detained and removed (I'm pretty sure that is the case). It just seemed questionable from the reporting I'd seen what the underlying justification to go in was. I'll eventually see the details. Unless they're only shown on Nancy Grace. Then I'll just have to live in ignorance.
	Submit to Quotes

04-08-2008, 11:42 AM	#10
Ghoulish Delight I Floop the Pig Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Alternative Swankstyle Posts: 19,348	Remind me not to marry her. __________________ 'He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.' -TJ
	Submit to Quotes