Are There Transsexuals here who have successfully married?

[hankhavelock]

Originally Posted by tslust

In a few States, even if you get the SRS, they still won't legally recognize you as a woman.

That, I'm sure, is quite right. It's a jungle, really.

My next point, then, would be to challenge the inhumane laws that actually demand of a transsexual woman to undergo SRS (to be both castrated and having her penis mutilated) to be recognized as a legal woman.

Transsexuality happens between the ears, not between the legs.

Demanding SRS is a BARBARIC torture implied on trans*woman by a basicly hetero fashistic society to whom gender is defined by genitalia.

Now, if they would AT LEAST be biologically consistent and demand a full change of the cromosomes they would at least have a point.

But again, this is not the right thread for this :-)

[tslust]

Originally Posted by hankhavelock

My next point, then, would be to challenge the inhumane laws that actually demand of a transsexual woman to undergo SRS (to be both castrated and having her penis mutilated) to be recognized as a legal woman.

Transsexuality happens between the ears, not between the legs.

I couldn't agree with you more. Personally, I want to keep my penis. I know that some girls don't like their penis and can't wait to have theirs removed.

[hankhavelock]

Originally Posted by tslust

I couldn't agree with you more. Personally, I want to keep my penis. I know that some girls don't like their penis and can't wait to have theirs removed.

Yes, and if she wants it removed, then it is HER choice! That "choice" should not be "made easier" by external forces... I will start a new thread on this in a little while... it's a very important matter...

[mr. macaque]

requiring srs does seem to be an arbitrary way of defining gender for the purposes of marriage. but let's not forget that america is a democracy, and if more than half of the electorate defines marriage as only between a (genetic) woman and a man, then that's that.

i take a zen-like approach to these kinds of questions...progress comes very slowly in our world...

[hankhavelock]

Originally Posted by mr. macaque

requiring srs does seem to be an arbitrary way of defining gender for the purposes of marriage. but let's not forget that america is a democracy, and if more than half of the electorate defines marriage as only between a (genetic) woman and a man, then that's that.

i take a zen-like approach to these kinds of questions...progress comes very slowly in our world...

I disagree - if we had to leave everything to the agreement of half of the population we'd still be having sex with goats...

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by hankhavelock

I disagree - if we had to leave everything to the agreement of half of the population we'd still be having sex with goats...

Ain't nothing wrong with that! Goats are very loving...

[fionahavelock]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

Ain't nothing wrong with that! Goats are very loving...

hahaha... good post.. makes me smile...

[hankhavelock]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

Ain't nothing wrong with that! Goats are very loving...

Especially in leather and a nice little evening make-up...

[mr. macaque]

Originally Posted by hankhavelock

I disagree - if we had to leave everything to the agreement of half of the population we'd still be having sex with goats...

your premise is flawed. we leave everything to the agreement of half of the elected representatives and/or voters.

[ila]

Originally Posted by mr. macaque

requiring srs does seem to be an arbitrary way of defining gender for the purposes of marriage. but let's not forget that america is a democracy, and if more than half of the electorate defines marriage as only between a (genetic) woman and a man, then that's that.

i take a zen-like approach to these kinds of questions...progress comes very slowly in our world...

Fortunately I live in a country where any person is allowed to marry the person of his or her choice. Naturally there are limits on this such as not being able to marry someone under a certain age and not being able to marry a close blood relative; i.e. brother, sister, mother, father etc.

[Bionca]

Originally Posted by mr. macaque

requiring srs does seem to be an arbitrary way of defining gender for the purposes of marriage. but let's not forget that america is a democracy, and if more than half of the electorate defines marriage as only between a (genetic) woman and a man, then that's that.

i take a zen-like approach to these kinds of questions...progress comes very slowly in our world...

It has been well established that one cannot allow issues of social justice up to the whims of popular opinion. This is one of the reasons for the establishment of the rule of law over mob justice.

[mr. macaque]

Originally Posted by Bionca

It has been well established that one cannot allow issues of social justice up to the whims of popular opinion. This is one of the reasons for the establishment of the rule of law over mob justice.

i actually agree! look at prop 8 in california. it's a mess that only the voting public can make.

[smc]

Originally Posted by mr. macaque

let's not forget that america is a democracy, and if more than half of the electorate defines marriage as only between a (genetic) woman and a man, then that's that.

I'll resist the great temptation to discuss whether America is actually a democracy (it all depends on how you define the word). Instead, I want to explain the "tyranny of the majority." This phrase was coined by Alexis de Tocqueville, who in 1835 published a book titled Democracy in America that is one of the finest works of sociology and political science ever. Tocqueville, a Frenchman, traveled throughout what then comprised the United States to study the unique republic in which the French were so interested.

The concept of the "tyranny of the majority" comes from ancient Greece. It is why we have the Equal Protection Clause in the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

In essence, this concept recognizes that the rights citizens enjoy in the republic should not be subject to the approval of the majority. It is a fundamental tool in protecting the rights of minorities. And it is enforced by not allowing votes on questions of rights.

Unfortunately, it is sometimes subverted. Any time voters are given an opportunity to decide, by majority rule, on whether a given group should have fundamental rights taken away, it raises the specter of the "tyranny of the majority."

Keep in mind that the 14th Amendment was enacted just a few short years after the U.S. Civil War ended, and it was targeted specifically at the "tyranny of the majority" -- white people -- in the South. Many of the ex-Confederate states adopted so-called "Black Codes" after the war with the express purpose of denying rights to former slaves.

In America, we are not supposed to vote on rights. They are guaranteed.

mr. macaque writes that "if more than half of the electorate defines marriage" in a certain way, "then that's that". I wonder whether he would be so enamored of "American democracy" if there was a vote on whether he had the free speech right to post on a website called Trans Ladyboy Forum.

[mr. macaque]

Originally Posted by smc

In America, we are not supposed to vote on rights. They are guaranteed.

i wish that were true, but in reality, it is not. forty states have either a constitutional ban on gay marriage or legislated laws against gay marriage. if the ep clause of 14th amendment applied to all kinds of marriages, then all forty states' laws would have been stuck down via the supremacy clause. so far, they haven't been. i think in our lifetimes laws restricting same sex marriage will viewed as unconstitutional by the courts, just not thus far.

it's my personal opinion that courts follow public opinion closely, even lag behind it. hence, what really matters is what you call the tyranny of the majority, because even though the constitution is broad in the rights that it gives, it's applied very unevenly.

[smc]

I did not mean to imply that we have guaranteed rights everywhere, or that we have all the rights we should have. Rather, I was only describing what is supposed to be the modelfor the provision of rights: that they be guaranteed when granted, and not subject to the whims of the (prejudiced) electorate.