Transexual alimony
I was interested to see what would come of the alimony case in Florida where a transexual’s exhusband was trying to get out of his alimony payments.
I’m not entirely sure how I feel about the ruling.
“It’s illegal for a man to marry a man and it should likewise be illegal for a man to pay alimony to a man,” said John McGuire, one of Roach’s attorneys.
Circuit Judge Jack R. St. Arnold, however, ruled that in the eyes of the law, nothing changed significantly enough to free Roach from his $1,250-a-month obligation.
The judge said since Florida courts have ruled sex-change surgery cannot legally change a person’s birth gender, Roach technically is not paying alimony to a man.
I guess in the end, it was a good decision, although I don’t like the judge’s reason behind it (that Silverwolf, the ex-wife, isn’t really a man). That, to me, seems to pretty clearly invalidate an individual’s ability to determine their own gender. I think it’s kind of funny that they referred to it as “birth gender”, since there’s really not such a thing. You have a birth sex, but gender is a social construct.
I wonder what would happen if a F2M transexual and a birth-sexed female tried to marry. Would they rule that it’s a gay marriage? This seems to set the precedent that it could be construed as such. If that’s the case, it’s pretty not-fair that no matter what you do, you are forever locked into your DNA, even down to who the state allows you to love.
Alimony, though, is a weird subject for it to be about though, because I’m not entirely sure how I feel about it either. I think it was created in a time to help women who couldn’t feasibly take care of themselves if they didn’t have a man to support them. That’s not entirely the case anymore, so isn’t alimony somewhat of an outdated, patriarchal concept? At the same time, with the glass ceiling et al, I guess we can’t really get rid of alimony until women are actually earning as much as men. But since Silverwolf in the above case will be living as a man, and therefore receiving the financial benefits of it, wouldn’t that make the alimony no longer relevant?
I’m wondering what other people are thinking about this.
I hate this issue. I mean I really hate it. I couldn’t give a rats ass about gay marriage. Lets let everyone live for gods sake. Pursuit of happiness and what not. WHY NOT ? Because of the religious ties to marriage ? Judeo-christian beliefs that should be separate from state anyway. Should we not recognize a Hindu marriage because it doesn’t fall in line with our majority ? Why does everyone care so much ? I know why the gays care … because they’re basically being told whom to and not to love. But the opposition, my god why can’t this issue die already. So what if Marco wants Rico to give him a double fist pump. If he wants his hands smelling like that, why should anyone but them care at all. I am gonna to find an odd, inanimate object and try to wed it. See if it gets the same kind of uproar.
“How dare he destroy the sanctity of marriage by be-wedding that cheese grater. Doesn’t he know what will happen. Oh by the way honey, could you sign these divorce papers like half of the other people getting married, I’ve been popping cocktail waitresses two at a time on every business trip I’ve been on.”
End Rant.
Sol740 said this on March 30th, 2007 at 2:07 am
You know I’m going to call bullshit on gender being a social construct, at least to the degree that you imply. I’ll not go into it because you’ve heard my opinion before.
Regarding sex changes, and a person’s “right” to choose their gender, I disagree slightly. I recognize there are real factors that might make an individual who is one gender feel, or think like, the other, and I further recognize their right to identify as that gender. However, I don’t think surgery can truly erase, or repair, the physical gender of the individual. Let’s grant that he’s a man, totally a man inside, but was born with a female body. Clearly he wanted to physically be a man, so it sucks that he was born with a vagina. But he was born with a vagina, and all the rest of it including female genes. That he surgically alters his body to make it male-like surely pleases him and perhaps his sexual partners but doesn’t change the fact that he is physically a woman. He is physically a woman who has undergone surgery and hormone treatments. Yes, that sucks, but you can’t bend logic or reality for the sake of fairness.
Regarding alimony itself, I have mixed feelings. On the one hand, both parents should be legally obligated to provide a certain level of care for their children, whether they split up or not; it’s criminally irresponsible to have a child and not care for it. On the other hand, there are a lot of cases where, when you look at them individually, the implementation of the law is ridiculous. Cases do exist where a man should not be legally obligated to care for a child. There’s a difference between being a legal, by blood parent, and being a parent. The latter should determine who is obligated to care for the child, not the former.
That termy guy. said this on March 30th, 2007 at 5:36 pm
Sol, you’re preaching to the choir with that one. Although it’s funny you mention marrying inanimate objects, since that’s one of the many dumb excuses that conservatives try to use on why gay marriage shouldn’t be legal, the slippery slope argument. “If we let fags marry, the next thing you know, it’ll be legal to marry children! And then chairs! Do you really want your son married to a chair! Picture how hard that will be on their kids!” Because, obviously, the point of marriage is reproduction.
Termy, it’s my understanding that alimony is not the same as child support. Alimony is just what a husband has to pay to his ex-wife, regardless of their breeder status, while child support is particularly for kids. So that kind of influences the second half of your argument.
As far as the gender argument goes, we might just have to agree to disagree on that one. Although I totally understand your logic and “physical” argument – it’s a little more cut and dry than reality actually is. I think you aren’t seeing the distinction between gender and sex, and even if you discard the difference between the two, you still have to recognize that both are fluid. What sex is someone who is born with malformed genitals that take on the shape of a vagina or very very small penis that they remove at birth, but actually has XY chromosomes? Based on the stuff I’ve read in class, ambiguous sex is more common than you might realize. Often, doctors and parents just arbitrarily assign a gender and go with it. Anyway, if/when you accept or acknowledge that, then we can have the rest of the argument. Otherwise, we’re starting from such uncommon grounds that there’s no sense in going further.
brandie said this on March 31st, 2007 at 4:23 pm
I wasn’t aware that alimony and child support are different things. Call me uninformed. Having looked it up, I dislike alimony in any situation and would wonder what arguments could be made in its favor. The idea that your spouse owes you money just for being your spouse is preposterous to me. So I think the gender issue is a moot point in this specific situation.
I don’t disregard the difference between gender and sex, though I don’t necessarily see the two things you are referring to as exclusive to those words. The words “gender” and “sex” are somewhat interchangeable to me – I’ve just looked them up and one definition of gender is “sex” and the definition of sex includes both the physical and psychological elements of gender. So this is a matter of semantics.
But your underlying point is not. Let me suggest that point (tell me if I’m wrong), and respond to that. Your underlying accusation is that I’m not making a distinction between physical gender (penis, vagina) and psychological gender. I think my argument makes it clear that I do draw a distinction between these two things. I said that I believe there are situations where physical gender is opposite psychological gender, and that such individuals have every right to identify as that psychological gender. This is clearly a distinction between the two. Further, when I spoke of surgery being insufficient, I used the term “physical gender”; physical gender is what can not be repaired, regardless of one’s mind.
You also suggest that my thinking here is two black and white. It might appear so because I was speaking in broad terms. I wouldn’t be surprised by the number of people born with “malformed” genitals, hermaphrodites being the example here. I didn’t mention them because I thought it was irrelevant to the point I was making. In the case of an hermaphrodite, their physical gender is both male and female, perhaps more one than the other, and their psychological gender is likely one or the other. I think I’ve talked with you about the case of the hermaphrodite who was arbitrarily made into a (physical) female as a baby, and found playing with dolls “stupid” because they don’t “do anything”, and wanted instead to play with toy cars.
That termy guy. said this on April 1st, 2007 at 1:15 pm
OK… Let me preface this by saying I’m drunk and I have read this with one eye closed… I don’t know what you call a blog comment thread; a bl…. nevermind. I had $0.02 that I was going to throw in and they were mine but I think I’ll hold on to my pennys and invest them in a dot com start up instead. Ok fuck it I’ll make like gas station prices and give you a 1/10 of a cent. Peaople are people, who cares what the fuck they do. It’s fucking stupid and pointless to worry about it or try to control it because humans will find a way to satify themselves regardless. If 2 people bump uglies and create another human then gender, past OR present becomes irrelevant. You made the mess fucking deal with it. This is not a valid cop out for child support and I really don’t think one exits.
I’m not sure if any of this makes any sense. I actually did
LAUGH OUT LOUD ( it’s in caps and I typed it out so you KNOW it happened) when I read sol’s line:
So what if Marco wants Rico to give him a double fist pump.
BTW Sol LOOOOOOVES the cock.
r3dw0rm said this on April 6th, 2007 at 5:01 am
You should probably invest that two cents into your employer’s company. They need all the help they can get.
I agree with you re: child support, but this case is actually about alimony, which is when a former spouse has to give money to his ex to help sustain the standard of living that she’s used to. So it’s got nothing to do with kids, it’s like “ex-wife support”. So I think that flavors the discussion a bit.
I’m glad to know that about Sol. Does he fuck a hot chick on the side so as not to be all the way ghey?
Termy, I’m still planning on responding to you. I know you’re on the edge of your seat.
brandie said this on April 6th, 2007 at 7:53 am