Tuesday, May 12, 2009

More from Jenny Finney Boylan



Jenny Finney Boylan, The author of "She's Not There" wrote an op-ed in this Sunday's New York Times that addresses the question of whether or not she was in a gay marriage in the state of Maine. This was the EXACT question that was brought up in our class: what happens if a transgendered person stays in their marriage? does it become a "gay" marriage? is it legal? does the state recognize it?

Please read the article, Is My Marriage Gay?. I look forward to reading your comments!

29 comments:

  1. I found many ideas in this article very interesting. I definitely would agree with Boylan that gender is elusive because almost every person has a different definition of what gender is based on our different experiences. Boylan expresses a question which we all struggle with. She points out that nobody knows exactly how to define gender: whether by chromosomes, genitalia, or spirit. As we discussed in class, people may be born one gender and change genders as they grow up. In doing so, they are complicating the way to define gender.
    Though I'm moslty neutral to the idea of gay marriage, I think it's important to accept people for who they are and not for who they identify with. By legalizing gay marriage, states are being accepting of more people.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Boylan raises an interesting point that in a marriage where one person transitions, one could define that couple as being a gay, married couple. I think that this article further emphasizes what we've been talking about in class - that in terms of gender and in terms of legal matters involving gender, there is no black and white. Transgender or "unknown" gender makes defining things from a legal standpoint very difficult. Personally, I support gay marriage, so this doesn't change my view of legalizing gay marriage. I think that, as Boylan said, marriage should be granted to any couple that loves each other and wants to get married, regardless of gender.

    As for whether a couple of two women, one of whom is transgendered, would be considered gay, I think that they would be (or at least bisexual). Since transitioning genders isn't something that you decide one day, but something that is within you and part of your identity, I think that marrying someone of the same gender that you identify with would be considered homosexual. However, that is beside the point, because marriage should not be restricted by sex or gender.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think that transgenders and their spouses, upon receiving gender change surgery, should decide whether or not their marriage is gay. I think that it varies, and depends on which couple you talk to. What if one spouse was bisexual? Then it may be considered a gay marriage. It all depends on the feelings of each spouse. The transgender may not be gay. They could have received the surgery for any reason. Personally, I think that gay marriage should be legal all over, because I see nothing wrong with it. Although I am heterosexual, I see everyone else as equal members of society. So, if the marriage is considered a gay marriage by the couple, I believe the state should recognize it.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I think that if a transgendered person stays in their marriage to the previously opposite sex person then it is a gay marriage. The people who change genders do it because they truly believe they are the other gender. In order for them to fully exercise their power to be the other gender, they must follow all the unwritten rules of being that gender. So if a male transgenders into a female, but was previously married to a female, then the marriage becomes between two females. This would make it a gay marriage. I think that the state should also see the person as how they want to be seen. Although I also think same sex marriage should be allowed in all states, if a male changes into a female and is married to a female then technically, if the state bans it, the marriage should be banned.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I think it is really up to the couple on what they want to call themselves and their marriage, gay, straight, whatever they feel relates best to them. Honestly, I think the whole idea of laws on who can marry who is bogus. Marriage is a human right, not a heterosexual privilege. Of course, my little blog here won't change the way the world thinks or operates. But that is all I have to say. Less laws, more love.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Boylan's article reminds me of the activity we did at the beginning of our unit on gender. Ms. Ruback read us words like gender and biological sex and we had to decide what our own definition was. When we did the activity everyone had a different idea of what gender and biological sex were. Boylan is saying the same type of thing. In all fifty states there are only five that allow for the differences in opinion. I really like how Sally put it, "Marriage is a human right, not a heterosexual privilege". Love is something that can't be controlled, no matter what gender you associate with. So to suddenly say that marriage depends on gender you are 'legally' and then to just as suddenly dismiss that idea is stupid and pointless.

    ReplyDelete
  7. After reading the article I was really suprised by all the laws to leagalize different marriages. I really don't think it's the governments promlem about what a couple wants to idenify with is up to them. I find it hard to beleive laws can be structured around people's genger idenity's and what they identify their marriage. I really think it's up to preferance and not have to be written in stone. I think society need to put everyone in a category and doesn't realize that what other people preferances is for their idenity for gender and marriage is not a society problem it's for individuls.

    ReplyDelete
  8. This was a very interesting article because it gave the strict rules of marriage in certain states, but there was also nuances. There are some states that have not recognized sex change. Ohio is an example. If a woman is a transgender male, s/he can only marry a male. Also, in Kansas, transgender people basically can only have same sex marriage.
    Also a ruling in San Antonio in Littelton vs Prange said that only people with different chromosomes can get married (so at least one of them had to have a Y chromosome in order to marry).
    This article showed me the different rules in the states that have not legalized same-sex marriage, and the examples were interesting. It seems like in Ohio, since sex-change is not recognized, the people end up always having opposite sex marriages, even if one of them is a transgendered male (who was a woman and is marrying a male) or a transgender female (who was a man and is marrying a female). So technically, they should be called same-sex marriage.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I think this is a really interesting and confusing topic. It is extremely hard to give a specific definition of gender, because there are so many ways to define it. I think that the couple should define what their relationship is, not the state. Also, being transgendered doesn't change your sexual orientation, which further complicates things.

    Marriage laws are extremely frustrating. I don't understand why anyone would want to block a marriage, and the legal rights that come with that marriage. In the end I think that laws blocking gay marriage are more based on religious beliefs and closed mindedness then actually trying to protect anyone. The law should protect all couples, and by denying some the right to marriage, they are denying people their legal rights. Everyone has the right to be protected under the law, no matter what these couples define their relationship as. Don't make love illegal.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I think that their marriage is a gay marriage: they both identify as female, so they are female, so their marriage is gay. However, I don’t think it really matters. I agree with Boylan – a couple who loves each other should be able to marry.
    I think some of those laws prohibiting certain marriages were ridiculous. It almost reminds me of some of those Jim Crow laws – people can only marry if they’re both of the same race/people can only marry if one is XX and the other is XY.

    ReplyDelete
  11. It seems like people are so stubborn and do not want to digress from their belief that a marriage is only between a man and a female. But they can't always define male and female anymore. These people must face the reality that there are gay people and there are transgender people and there are other options besides heterosexual marriage.
    Boylon's article brings up all these points and provokes discussion on what should be done. I think it was ironic how Texas tried so hard to prohibit gay marriage, but by doing so, actually allowed it.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Marriage laws are ridiculous. Why does it matter if a marriage is gay or not? Jenny poses a good point: what matters is that she and her wife are happy together. Gender is such a vague thing anyway, depending on how each individual person interprets it. The fact that Jenny's wife is willing to stay with her despite her gender change surely says something about the fact that gender doesn't really matter. Who do other people think they are, trying to get in the way of that? I agree completely with Sally when she says that marriage is a human right, not a heterosexual privilege. Everyone deserves the right to be with the one they love.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I think if a transgendered person stays in their marriage it is similar to the all girls school with boys issue. If they are in a state where same-sex marriage isn't allowed then it is breaking the law. I don't think the it is right for the law to not recognize a marriage because of something like this happening, but I think in Law it has to be black and white, there are no gray zones and if a person wants to make the full commitment to go through the procedure and call themselves a man or women, they should live as that and honor the law. Not to say that the law should have any restriction on marriages between people that love eachother (and are of legal age to marry), but it it is in fact the law and it does need to be honored in order for the law to work.

    ReplyDelete
  14. The thing that I found the most interesting was how Boylan mentioned that if a transgendered person went to different states, their marriage rights would change significantly. Like she said, this is pretty ridiculous, because being accustomed to being able to have a gay marriage in, say Massachusetts, but then go to a state that does not permit gay marriage, I would imagine that would be fairly frustrating. This brings up the matter of the government's role in this situation, and the question of whether this should be a collective decision, or leave it to the individual states, like it is now. Then again, if it were either one way or another for everyone, it seems more likely that gay marriage would be illegal in every state. So in the end, I guess it would be best to keep things the way they are, because there's still gradual progress, which is better than no progress at all.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I think that the wife is lesbian because if Boylan decided to become a female he wasnt a male anymore. Therefore Boylan's wife is married to a female. I think that post-op transexuals should be called legally male or female because they are being recognize for their sex change. I think once your a legally a man/female you their for can marry the opposite sex and still be granted the same rights as those with no sex change in a heterosexual relationship. I am pro gay marriage even though I am a Christian and a liberal person so I believe everyone should have the same marraige rights. People can marry who ever they want to if they love each other.
    -CANDiCE

    ReplyDelete
  16. My general opinion about marriage is pretty neutral. I believe that anyone should be able to marry regardless of the sex of their partner. I don't know if I would call the particular types of marriages presented in the article as gay marriages. First of all, the marriage started off as a straight marriage, and the spouses fell in love with each other as the opposite sex. On the outside, the pairing may look gay, but the couples still love each other for the same reasons as when the marriage was made of diffrent sexes. I also think that it is very hard to label marriages as same gender because each person describes gender so differently.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I agree with Jackie and Alex. If the person wants to completely transition then their intention is to be the opposite sex. Jenny is married to a female and completely desires to be a female, which would make it a gay relationship?? Also with the surgery Jenny is now a women all the way through. Everyone should have the right to love whoever. I thought it was interesting how the lawyer from Littleton talks about the man who in every state changes to something different depending on the state laws.

    "is a male and has a void marriage; as she travels to Houston, Tex., and enters federal property, she is female and a widow; upon traveling to Kentucky she is female and a widow; but, upon entering Ohio, she is once again male and prohibited from marriage; entering Connecticut, she is again female and may marry; if her travel takes her north to Vermont, she is male and may marry a female; if instead she travels south to New Jersey, she may marry a male.”

    ReplyDelete
  18. I think the passage about the changing laws and statues of the transgendered persons who travel to different states was so weird, and somehow funny too. Like i have mentioned a lot in the beginning of the school year, one of the biggest surprises for me as an austrian/european in america was that we did not know that the states are so different and unique, have their own laws and backgrounds. For us, it is just "The US". And it is everything but "just the US".
    I think that this is actually awesome. since there are so many states, you can basically just look for the right one for you and move there (if there isnt any other option). no country in europe is that free.
    I personally thought its really funny that teas was basically one of the first states to allow gay marriage, (well, although it is worded a little bit differently) because i always saw that state as very conservative and republican. I think that it shouldn't really matter if you call a marriage gay or not, it should like just be able for everyone who loves a person to marry that person. regardless of gender, race, and socially constructed morals.

    ReplyDelete
  19. This article raises an interesting point that really shouldn't be as interesting. The obvious answer here is that it just shouldn't matter, and that marriage should just be "a union between two people" and not defined by gender. I think it's absolutely absurd that people can realize there are "problems" like in the article around, and not realize along with that that they can't escape things like this until they just consider marriage something to unite two people that love each other. I can't imagine what's so scary or taboo about that, other than tradition. Then again, that may be because of my own views on the matter.
    They should at least do something about the varied laws by state issue regarding gender. That shouldn't be something that can change if you cross the border. It also shouldn't be possible to marry someone of the same gender here, then go over to a state where that marriage is void, and be married a second time to someone of the opposite gender.

    ReplyDelete
  20. After reading this article, I feel like it is a lot harder to get away with banning Gay Marriage. The author pretty much says that it is happening, whether some people know it or not, already. I thought it was interesting when she asked how gender was defined by the state, especially within the issue of marriage. Another thing I thought was completely unnecessarily complicated was in the Littleton case. The person was saying how an identity can change from one state to another, in one state you can marry women, in others only men; in some a person is widowed, in others not. It all just seems like a waste of time to me. Marriage is about love, that's all, and happiness. Everyone should marry whoever they desire, like the author said at the end, as long as it is good for them and their family.

    ReplyDelete
  21. This article brought up a lot of good points, and I think pointing out the absurdity of the situation was interesting. Clearly the situation would be simpler if the whole country accepted marriages between any genders and sexes, and let people change their gender. But until that point, in my opinion, gay couples include two people of the same gender. I’m not sure how the government would want to define the line between gender, but I think people should show some commitment to the gender they choose so gender choices won’t be made on a whim.

    ReplyDelete
  22. This is such an interesting article. I think that as soon as a person who was married to a woman (as a man) decides to be transgender and completely becomes a female (beyond the mind, such as the body), the state and everybody else should recognize her as a female. And as soon as she is a female, and is continued to married to a female, it is essentially a gay marriage. And although there are only a few states that legalizes gay marriage, if the married couple is a "gay marriage," those states that do not allow/legalized gay marriage should be banned.

    ReplyDelete
  23. If we're going by the idea that gender is identity, and thus doesn't spontaneously change in the middle of one's life, then these marriages were same-sex unions from the very start. No state should have the right to forcibly divorce two people, or declare their marriage invalid, if said union was recognized by the law. And since I doubt most state marriage laws include a clause about psychological gender, it seems to make more sense that these marriages should be recognized even after one partner has had a sex change.

    Personally, I don't think it's the government's business to withhold marital status to any couple. Leave the moral and religious side to those who are supposed to be concerned with the moral and religious: the spiritual leaders. If a faith chooses not to recognize marriage between same-sex couples, then that is up to them. It is not the government's place to safeguard public morality, except in the fundamentals of law and human rights. As far as I'm concerned, our elected officials would do better to stay on the secular side of this great divide, and remember that our country does believe in separation of church and state.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Before reading this article i had never really considered the outcome of a married couple where either spouse or husband would decide to change gender. It had always seemed black or white. After reading the article, it seemed so much clearer to me that it is ultimately the choice of the couple to decide if they are gay, lesbian, straight or a transsexual couple. I think that it is unfair for the government to deny a transsexual marriage any validity, when they do know the circumstances. Also reading out the widows of transsexual marriages and the fact that they were denied their legal assets just makes me mad. The government has no say over emotional feelings so why intervene?

    ReplyDelete
  25. In everything that we have studied relating to gender lines, there is always more of a spectrum idea rather than a classification. There is always so many variations to terms and conceptions that to attach a name to a specific case almost always brings in unaccuracies. And the codes of society should be formatted to the spectrum idea. They should allow the flexability for transgendered couples, or gay couples, or other variants to live the way they choose. Discrimination manifests itself quite apparently when it comes to the law, and so equivalence of rights should be granted to all couples.

    ReplyDelete
  26. I agree with Ryan. There are so many exceptions to the rules that there are no real rules any more. This article only enforces the idea that all marriages between humans should be legal. You cant have one type of couple be legal but another not be legal. Like this last story, the marriage is legal when you look at it from one direction but if you look at it another way it is illegal. If marriage legality can so easily be swayed by point of perspective than how can people make laws based on perspective? They can't! If there is no straight definition or viewpoint people cant absolutely determine legality. their for they cant make it illegal.

    ReplyDelete
  27. I don't think it should really be that big of an issue as to whether or not it is a "gay" marriage. I mean,, why does it matter, it's still a marriage. Whether or not it is legal or recognized by the state is a ridiculous question. The only reason it wouldn't be is because the government and society itself is so close-minded. Either way the couple is going to define themselves as married whether or not it is officially approved by the state. The country cannot try and prevent gay marriage by disapproving it on paper. It still exists and I think that should be the end of the discussion. Each couple has a right to view their relationship how they want and should not have to be judged for wanting to spend the rest of their life with someone.

    ReplyDelete
  28. I never knew that this was such a big issue until I read this article, that people could travel from state to state and be only allowed to marry a certain, and often different sex that in another state. The gray spots of the marriage are HUGE gaps. Especially when states have different definitions of the words "male" and "female". Thus, marriage can just ultimately be really complicated when people care so much about what it's determined as. This also makes me wonder, like the author said, what gender is really defined as: how you feel, your genetic make-up, or how you look

    ReplyDelete
  29. Ok i didn't really answer the questions so my bad I just kind of went on a tangent. I think the state should recognize your marriage as legal if you abide by the state laws in marrying in the first place. It's similar to the article we read about transmen/boys graduating from all girl's colleges.

    ReplyDelete