Susan's Place Transgender Resources

I was a little shocked when I stopped to consider some of the ramification GID has within our own personal life. With all the furore over the legalities of same sex marriages, I stopped to think the other day, within 12 months I will be legally female. So what implications does that have on my current marriage contract?

OK. I've known for some time that I'm not male. First realisations that something was a miss was at age 4.

During my teens and 20's I proactively researched this condition. By my mid 20's I was sure I was female. I again proactively and with full knowledge, researched ways and means to have this biological condition rectified. The effort applied, could in no way be construed as a minor interest, hobby or some other recreational persuit.

Legally speaking I have two major components by which a felony is determined. I have full knowledge and intent.

So, in my 30's did I commit a felony by entering into a legal and binding contract of marriage, having knowledge and intent to, at sometime in the future, change this biological abberation. Further to that, did I wilfully entered into an illegal same sex marriage? (Using the term "sex" very loosely, to infer gender)

Have I also been complicit in surrendering false and misleading information to State and Federal Authorities with respects to legal documents, licences, Statutory Declarations, and a plethora of legal contracts?

If ignorance of the law is no longer admissible evidence for a pardon. Surely knowledge, intent and execution of a felony is tantamount to a verdict of guilty. I have absolutely nothing in my defence for any such charges. I must stand guilty on all counts.

How do the rest of us fair, that have knowledge dating back some time?

Interesting point to ponder.

Be safe, well and happy. (Hopefully out of jail of course.)

Lotsa huggs
Catherine

As we say in New Jersey; "It is only illegal if you get caught"

Or, a classic line from On the Waterfront; "I am D & D....deaf and dumb"

Unless you fully knew before getting married which if you did you probably wouldn't have gotten married it seems to me your NOT GUILTY  :police:

Ah, C.S., you are missing one of the finer points of American jurisprudence. You must be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

They would have to PROVE that despite being male-bodied you were a woman. We transgenders know how impossible it is for an MTF to prove she really is female. That works in your favor in this case, because ain't a prosecutor in this land that could prove you weren't a man.

I don't think contracts apply retro-actively =P Intent or not it was a legal marriage when it was conceived. Or else divorce would be illegal! x3

However I am curious if you can be denied martial benefits if you change your gender and the state ceases to recognize it as valid. That I have no idea about.

Just seek asylum in Canada, Catherine. Our laws regarding marriage are more enlightened.  :police:

Quote from: Bailey on June 25, 2012, 06:57:55 PM
The following does not constitute legal advice.

You haven't done anything wrong, at least at the federal level. Things of this nature are almost never challenged due to the tremendous amount of ambiguity and the huge gray area it resides in. There is also enough case law on your side that there shouldn't be anything to worry about. For everything you've listed, you're in the clear, but there may be future complications depending on the state you reside in with regards to the privileges granted by marriage such as the transfer of assets after death as in probate, as well as the ability to make medical decisions for your spouse or vice versa if something were to happen to either one of you. That can be remedied by a simple power of attorney for that specific situation if anything were to come up and you want your bases covered, so to speak. It may behoove you to look up the privileges afforded to you by marriage and see which ones could possibly bring about issues and remedy them with powers of attorney or what have you. 

Even if something were to happen, you are more than likely safe under psychiatric pretenses. There's nothing really that can happen to you.

Some states are best avoided, such as Texas, which isn't friendly to the situation of marriage considering the definition of "man" and "woman" changes when one crosses state lines as well as upon entering federal buildings dependent upon one's legal sex status.

If you are in the United States, retroactive application or retrospective application of law as opposed to other application is a constitutional violation under article 1. Case law on this has been flipped upside down, however, in certain respects. Almost all the courts in the U.S. will argue that it doesn't apply to civil laws, only criminal laws even though the constitution doesn't specify one between the other.

The argument here is that civil laws are regulatory in nature and therefore are legally assumed to be non-punitive (even though this is just a bull->-bleeped-<- strawman tactic)

The courts have turned a blind eye to the fact that civil laws have increasingly been used to circumvent constitutional guarantees under this premise, so that civil law gets used as punitive measure. The requirement of civil law is preponderance of the evidence, not beyond the shadow of a doubt. This serves as a rather nasty double standard that gets the win each time as the courts pretend to not see the game being played. This, even when the weight of evidence is damning against the clever arguments here.

In respect to the medical aspects, I doubt any prosecution would go anywhere based on a person finally obtaining the courage to move ahead in the face of public stigma and political morality charades.

I won't worry about it and neither should anyone else.

 

Interesting point Catherine. I'm not sure what Australia law is on this. Same sex relationships are of course legal and recognised with full access to superannuation and benefits etc if/when your partner passes on. But that is recent, it has been legal in South Australia for some time, but I think all of the States have now passed it. As you know same sex marriage is up for debate but will probably fail at the federal level. I see Queensland has started to wind back some of its same sex laws; which is disgusting.

In your case I would have thought that a gaol sentence would be mandatory, preferably with hard labour, either that or deported to the 'Old Country'  >:-)

Hugs

Cindy

Quote from: Bailey on June 26, 2012, 02:35:54 AM
You are correct in saying that laws cannot be enforced retroactively, in principle. The point you make is valid, though, and should be used to make the original poster feel at ease.

The burden of proof for criminal cases in the US is "beyond a reasonable doubt."

Absolutely, Bailey! You are correct in each statement. Couldn't have said it better!

I should say this though: when looking at civil statutes and especially if you find yourself in a position to have to defend against it, always fight it on the statutory scheme, statutory structure, and how it unfairly adds a new burden that poses substantial undue risk to the rights in question in relation to how the argued violation of the rights of another compare on the scales. "Your rights end where mine begin" is the strategy you are using here. It's always a completely legal argument when framed and presented properly.

Civil statutes with criminal penalties can always be argued as out of proportion to equal or substantially similar criminal laws, and therefore pose an unconstitutional burden on the count of double jeopardy. Why? Because if a civil statute provides a criminal remedy as punishment, and if the criminal charge could end up being applied if a finding against the person being tried is made, then you will effectively be tried twice for the same crime.

In the civil case, it would also pose a risk of criminal penalties being applied as a result of you testifying against yourself or incriminating yourself in SOME instances. Silence is best when you aren't sure or are in a grey area.

Quote from: Cindy James on June 26, 2012, 01:40:46 AM
In your case I would have thought that a gaol sentence would be mandatory, preferably with hard labour, either that or deported to the 'Old Country'  >:-)

Thanks Auntie. I knew I could count on you for support. (STOP packing my bags please. You'll be late for your CWA meeting)

Emma has offered me gender asylum in Canada. Mind you, I'm only going in their summer, IF, she can get rid of that minus thingy in front of the numbers.  :laugh: Still have to pack my sheepskin knickers though.  Joanne has offered me sanctuary in New Jersey, on the proviso I don't get caught.
So thank you I'll be right. I'll call when I'm safe. And I'll be back on your doorstep in Canada's winter.

Thank you very much everyone. Very interesting points raised by our US brothers and sisters. Well done.

Just to clarify a few matters, I wasn't really concerned about litigation, unless some red neck from the Fred Nile Party went on a power trip.

Secondly I come under the federal jurisdiction of the Commonwealth of Oz and the State jurisdiction of New South Wales. As Cindy mentioned same sex relationships have moved forward in recent years in Oz. Late last year Federal Law was modified with respects to passport applications; that you could change your gender marker without surgery. You can even apply for 'X' which denotes you identify as androgynous. For most legal ID documents in Oz, a passport will most often provide the 100 pts required for proof of ID. It's equal to your birth cert. as far as ID is concerned.

It was the point you raised Bailey, on which I would see, should a case be brought against me ( Humm let me check. Has hell frozen over yet ................... No) that would the Prosecution's opening argument; "Beyond reasonable doubt." Evidence of my research and investigations into gender change would be damning to say the least.

I may come to stay with you Dawn Heart, as retrospective legislation is alive and well in Oz.   

Be safe, well and happy.
Lotsa huggs  (from goal  :laugh:)
Catherine

Quote from: Catherine Sarah on June 26, 2012, 04:13:50 AM
Thanks Auntie. I knew I could count on you for support. (STOP packing my bags please. You'll be late for your CWA meeting)

Emma has offered me gender asylum in Canada. Mind you, I'm only going in their summer, IF, she can get rid of that minus thingy in front of the numbers.  :laugh: Still have to pack my sheepskin knickers though.  Joanne has offered me sanctuary in New Jersey, on the proviso I don't get caught.
So thank you I'll be right. I'll call when I'm safe. And I'll be back on your doorstep in Canada's winter.

Thank you very much everyone. Very interesting points raised by our US brothers and sisters. Well done.

Just to clarify a few matters, I wasn't really concerned about litigation, unless some red neck from the Fred Nile Party went on a power trip.

Secondly I come under the federal jurisdiction of the Commonwealth of Oz and the State jurisdiction of New South Wales. As Cindy mentioned same sex relationships have moved forward in recent years in Oz. Late last year Federal Law was modified with respects to passport applications; that you could change your gender marker without surgery. You can even apply for 'X' which denotes you identify as androgynous. For most legal ID documents in Oz, a passport will most often provide the 100 pts required for proof of ID. It's equal to your birth cert. as far as ID is concerned.

It was the point you raised Bailey, on which I would see, should a case be brought against me ( Humm let me check. Has hell frozen over yet ................... No) that would the Prosecution's opening argument; "Beyond reasonable doubt." Evidence of my research and investigations into gender change would be damning to say the least.

I may come to stay with you Dawn Heart, as retrospective legislation is alive and well in Oz.   

Be safe, well and happy.
Lotsa huggs  (from goal  :laugh:)
Catherine

You have to come to hillbilly heaven if your going to NJ.. sheesh i am just a couple stones thrown away from there. We don't have rednecks here bt we do have many horses and buggies.. Yepper i'll drive you buggy all over here..

Quote from: Amazon D on June 26, 2012, 07:00:02 AM
You have to come to hillbilly heaven if your going to NJ.. sheesh i am just a couple stones thrown away from there. We don't have rednecks here bt we do have many horses and buggies.. Yepper i'll drive you buggy all over here..

Danielle, you've won me. Hope it doesn't snow. If it does; don't hold dinner. My brain (if I had one  :laugh: ) freezes once the temp drops below +10⁰C, just don't tell the GodMother that please. She'll be the first one to turn the air conditioner down, just for fun  ;D :laugh: :'(

You must live in a nice part of heaven.

Be safe, well and happy
Lotsa huggs
Catherine

I would like to ask a question on this topic instead of starting a new thread. Has anyone here in the U.S. or elsewhere experienced any sort of trouble with Child Protective Services as a parent based on being Transgender? If so, are you able to talk about any part of what happened and how far CPS went with building a case against you?

What sort of harm did they say it presents to your children, and how did they frame their arguments?

Quote from: Dawn Heart on June 29, 2012, 02:43:48 PM
I would like to ask a question on this topic instead of starting a new thread. Has anyone here in the U.S. or elsewhere experienced any sort of trouble with Child Protective Services as a parent based on being Transgender? If so, are you able to talk about any part of what happened and how far CPS went with building a case against you?

What sort of harm did they say it presents to your children, and how did they frame their arguments?

CPS will not come after you just because you have GID. Just having GID does not constitute grounds for persecution or prosecution. Having said that, most of the CPS agents are clueless to GID, so you will have to some polite education.

All depends on the age of your children, who is accusing you of what, etc. MY first encounter with them was when my ex was accusing me of '"traumatizing" the children and of being a ->-bleeped-<-.

I met the CPS agent, and in a calm way I told the woman that I have not been doing any illegal or immoral thing, and that current federal regulation protect people with GID, and that I was prepared to take with a lawyer if it come to that. I told her that many studies have shown that having a transgender parent does not harm their children. In my case, it helped that my kids at that time were old enough to voice their opinion, which were very favorable to me. Nothing bad come out of it for me, but that it is not to say that other folks may have had different experiences,.

Good luck

The short answer is that nobody knows hos SRS affects marriage, outside of a handful of states.  (this is US-specific)

I don't know of any state that uses anything other than physical characteristics (either chromosomes, gonads, or genitals) for determining male and female for purposes of marriage.  DMVs and such use other characteristics for ID cards and driver's licenses, but DMVs don't marry people.  So who you really are, if it differs from your chromosomes, gonads, and genitals, does not matter one bit for marriage.

I don't know of any state that has invalidated a marriage that was entered into in a valid way, where at the time of marriage the parties had different chromosomes (XX for one, XY for the other) from each other, different sexual organs, and different letters on their birth certificates.  But it could happen, particularly with DOMA - a state could refuse to recognize marriage between two men or two women.  And the feds cannot recognize marriage between two same sex people due to DOMA.  My reading of DOMA would imply that if the feds see both parties as men or both parties as women, the marriage isn't recognized by the feds.  So either you need the feds to not recognize your gender or you need the feds to get rid of DOMA if you and your spouse are the same gender.  I don't think DOMA makes an exception for "it was a valid marriage before you recognized my gender".

The key part of DOMA for the feds is "In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife."  If the feds recognize you both as man or both as woman, then I can't see how they could provide any benefits or responsibilities of marriage, regardless of your sex or gender at time of marriage.

The confusing part is that there is no definition of male or female, man or woman, in statute.  Some agencies at federal and state governments have policies and administrative law/regulations, but these are not binding on other agencies.  In otherwords, the State department of Family Services wouldn't have to recognize the State DMV's designation on a driver's license or the State Health Department's notation on a birth certificate or the Fed's notation on a passport.  They can (and often do) have different rules (or, as is also often the case, no rules at all, so they wing it on each case).

The other open question is "What definition of man and woman is important to the feds?"  If I was married in a state that recognizes SRS for purposes of marriage (most states neither recognize or not recognize it - it's simply unknown in most states what the law is, until there is a court challenge), but live in a state that doesn't recognize SRS for purposes of marriage, am I federally married?  There is no federal definition yet, but there are two contradictory state ones in this case - what wins?  Neither?  Marriage state?  Residence state?  It's important because of DOMA.

Complicating it is the fact that the documents don't make anything legal.  Having a birth certificate, driver's license, passport, or social security card with certain gender identifiers does NOT change your sex or gender legally.  It is evidence of your sex or gender, but at the end of the day, it's whatever a court thinks is important to sex or gender (typically chromosomes, sex organs, or what was initially indicated on your birth certificate - and if whatever criteria the court uses disagrees with your documents, your documents lose).

It's a royal mess and incredibly bad law right now.  Too many people assumed sex and gender were always trivial to determine, always obvious, and that everyone would always agree about someone's sex/gender (they use the words interchangeably - they don't even always recognize the difference between sex and gender!).  There are only two types of marriages which would be recognized by all states and the feds:

• Marriage between two opposite sex people who have BOTH have had NO SRS and who's original birth certificates have opposite gender identifiers.  There must be one penis and one vagina.
• Marriage between two opposite sex people who have BOTH have had "FULL" SRS (different states recognize different surgeries, unfortunately) and who's original birth certificates AND current birth certificates both have gender identifiers that would make the marriage heterosexual, no matter what standard is used by a court.  There must be one penis and one vagina, both now and in the past.

If someone has had SRS, and cares about this stupid, unconstitutional, discriminatory law, or you don't want the possible effects of entering illegally claiming marriage benefits/responsibilities, you need to either not marry or marry someone who also has transitioned (and is opposite sex).

I personally see my own marriage as a form of civil disobedience.  It's a heterosexual marriage, but we are in legal limbo as there is no definitive case law as to whether or not our marriage is valid - not in our birth states, not in our marriage state, and not in our state of residence.  Nor is the case law federally.  I think we're in the right, and we'd win a legal case, but I could be wrong.  But I do feel I had a responsibility to marry the person I loved, regardless of any legal ambiguities.  I'd rather profess my love and enter into marriage with my wife than not, even if there may someday be legal consequences.

That's why we need to support same-sex marriage, even if we are heterosexual.  Otherwise we will challenge the courts to define male and female, and there is no definition that would include everyone in the proper place.

Your legal designation, if your body has no variations from the norm, is assigned by your doctor at birth.   Does the doctor see male parts or female parts.    If you have a yx chromosomes your are designated a male and if you have xx chromosomes you are a female.   Yes I know that there are individuals who are variations of these sexual designations and these variations are just as normal in nature as any other variation.

When the law marries males and females they are marrying your genitals.    Male genitals to female genitals.    Your gender identification doesn't matter to the heterosexual world that has had control over who gets married.   

Therefore your marriage to your wife was not illegal nor was it a breach of contract.    Only with the coming of same sex marriage did that become a possibility.   In those states genitals do not marry any more.   Individuals and gender identification matter.     So when people get married today they need to be open with their perspective marriage partner their genital identification and their gender orientation and indicate rather they intend someday to have sexual reassignment surgery.     So that they have an oral agreement before they get a legal agreement and then if you don't disclose you are in a breech of contract.

So I really don't think you were in breech of contract until withdraw your sexual organ from your relationship.

As for myself I am a woman and only emotionally react as a woman when I make love.   My boy part is on its own.   If he works he works and if he doesn't he doesn't.    But emotionally when I make love to my partner its girl to girl emotionally.

This is just my reasoning which is devoid of any legal training on the subject.   

I know in Florida you are male because you are born with male genitals and have an xy chromosome.   You are female if you are born with female genitals and have xx chromosome.    You can not change your sexual identity even if you have surgery.    Transgender woman are legally considered men for purposes of marriage and divorce in Florida.   Physically changing your genitals does not change your sexual identity for marriage and divorce nor does it affect legal responsibility for the children.   

This is what I remember from the last time I read the law.   I could be mistaken so if its important to you in Florida you can access the Florida statutes on-line.

Quote from: Slanan on June 29, 2012, 08:52:21 PM
The short answer is that nobody knows hos SRS affects marriage, outside of a handful of states.  (this is US-specific)

I don't know of any state that uses anything other than physical characteristics (either chromosomes, gonads, or genitals) for determining male and female for purposes of marriage.  DMVs and such use other characteristics for ID cards and driver's licenses, but DMVs don't marry people.  So who you really are, if it differs from your chromosomes, gonads, and genitals, does not matter one bit for marriage.

I don't know of any state that has invalidated a marriage that was entered into in a valid way, where at the time of marriage the parties had different chromosomes (XX for one, XY for the other) from each other, different sexual organs, and different letters on their birth certificates.  But it could happen, particularly with DOMA - a state could refuse to recognize marriage between two men or two women.  And the feds cannot recognize marriage between two same sex people due to DOMA.  My reading of DOMA would imply that if the feds see both parties as men or both parties as women, the marriage isn't recognized by the feds.  So either you need the feds to not recognize your gender or you need the feds to get rid of DOMA if you and your spouse are the same gender.  I don't think DOMA makes an exception for "it was a valid marriage before you recognized my gender".

The key part of DOMA for the feds is "In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife."  If the feds recognize you both as man or both as woman, then I can't see how they could provide any benefits or responsibilities of marriage, regardless of your sex or gender at time of marriage.

The confusing part is that there is no definition of male or female, man or woman, in statute.  Some agencies at federal and state governments have policies and administrative law/regulations, but these are not binding on other agencies.  In otherwords, the State department of Family Services wouldn't have to recognize the State DMV's designation on a driver's license or the State Health Department's notation on a birth certificate or the Fed's notation on a passport.  They can (and often do) have different rules (or, as is also often the case, no rules at all, so they wing it on each case).

The other open question is "What definition of man and woman is important to the feds?"  If I was married in a state that recognizes SRS for purposes of marriage (most states neither recognize or not recognize it - it's simply unknown in most states what the law is, until there is a court challenge), but live in a state that doesn't recognize SRS for purposes of marriage, am I federally married?  There is no federal definition yet, but there are two contradictory state ones in this case - what wins?  Neither?  Marriage state?  Residence state?  It's important because of DOMA.

Complicating it is the fact that the documents don't make anything legal.  Having a birth certificate, driver's license, passport, or social security card with certain gender identifiers does NOT change your sex or gender legally.  It is evidence of your sex or gender, but at the end of the day, it's whatever a court thinks is important to sex or gender (typically chromosomes, sex organs, or what was initially indicated on your birth certificate - and if whatever criteria the court uses disagrees with your documents, your documents lose).

It's a royal mess and incredibly bad law right now.  Too many people assumed sex and gender were always trivial to determine, always obvious, and that everyone would always agree about someone's sex/gender (they use the words interchangeably - they don't even always recognize the difference between sex and gender!).  There are only two types of marriages which would be recognized by all states and the feds:

• Marriage between two opposite sex people who have BOTH have had NO SRS and who's original birth certificates have opposite gender identifiers.  There must be one penis and one vagina.
• Marriage between two opposite sex people who have BOTH have had "FULL" SRS (different states recognize different surgeries, unfortunately) and who's original birth certificates AND current birth certificates both have gender identifiers that would make the marriage heterosexual, no matter what standard is used by a court.  There must be one penis and one vagina, both now and in the past.

If someone has had SRS, and cares about this stupid, unconstitutional, discriminatory law, or you don't want the possible effects of entering illegally claiming marriage benefits/responsibilities, you need to either not marry or marry someone who also has transitioned (and is opposite sex).

I personally see my own marriage as a form of civil disobedience.  It's a heterosexual marriage, but we are in legal limbo as there is no definitive case law as to whether or not our marriage is valid - not in our birth states, not in our marriage state, and not in our state of residence.  Nor is the case law federally.  I think we're in the right, and we'd win a legal case, but I could be wrong.  But I do feel I had a responsibility to marry the person I loved, regardless of any legal ambiguities.  I'd rather profess my love and enter into marriage with my wife than not, even if there may someday be legal consequences.

That's why we need to support same-sex marriage, even if we are heterosexual.  Otherwise we will challenge the courts to define male and female, and there is no definition that would include everyone in the proper place.

Actually the situation in the states is turning very interesting. Two key gender identifying documents, driver license and passport, can now be change without SRS ! To get a marriage license you have to show the couples drivers license to proof age and a gender, or any  other pictured ID that show gender and age,  So....

I also know that OPM is about to issue a rule that will unify all Federal and State agencies requirements for gender designation change in IDs, and that is: to have a letter from a TG medical provider stating "that your transition into your new gender has been completed" (No SRS requirement is needed!)

Quote from: peky on June 30, 2012, 09:31:18 AM
Actually the situation in the states is turning very interesting. Two key gender identifying documents, driver license and passport, can now be change without SRS ! To get a marriage license you have to show the couples drivers license to proof age and a gender, or any  other pictured ID that show gender and age,  So....

I also know that OPM is about to issue a rule that will unify all Federal and State agencies requirements for gender designation change in IDs, and that is: to have a letter from a TG medical provider stating "that your transition into your new gender has been completed" (No SRS requirement is needed!)

Here's my question, now: is a TG medical provider going to say a gender transition is complete without surgery? How picky are TG medical providers on the issue?

Quote from: Dawn Heart on June 30, 2012, 11:31:02 AM
Here's my question, now: is a TG medical provider going to say a gender transition is complete without surgery? How picky are TG medical providers on the issue?

Well, in my "neck of the woods" a few of us who have been in HRT and doing the  RLE experience for a few months have received such and endorsement.  In my case, all I did was to call my doc and asked her to sign my petition for the DMV, and for letter for the passport, so as of today, I have already change my passport and my drivers license stating my gender as F. 

Quote from: peky on June 30, 2012, 11:48:26 AM
Well, in my "neck of the woods" a few of us who have been in HRT and doing the  RLE experience for a few months have received such and endorsement.  In my case, all I did was to call my doc and asked her to sign my petition for the DMV, and for letter for the passport, so as of today, I have already change my passport and my drivers license stating my gender as F.

That's awesome, Peky! Congrats!

I prefer the letter I needed which was that I am in a gender reorientation program.

Not completed transition as this is open to a wide interpretation.

Quote from: peky on June 30, 2012, 09:31:18 AM
Actually the situation in the states is turning very interesting. Two key gender identifying documents, driver license and passport, can now be change without SRS ! To get a marriage license you have to show the couples drivers license to proof age and a gender, or any  other pictured ID that show gender and age,  So....

It's evidence, but it doesn't change your sex (no piece of paper or plastic does).  But, yes, you can probably show that to a clerk and get a license in a state that doesn't actually recognize the marriage as valid.  That would be fraud, is illegal, and the marriage would be considered void.  That's happened to several couples around the nation who thought they were "legally" married.  If I show a driver's license that says "M" in a state that disallows same-sex marriage, and that state uses chromosomes as their criteria, EVEN IF THE CLERK ISSUED THE LICENSE (because he or she probably won't ask for a chromosome test!), I couldn't legally marry anyone with the same chromosome type as me (XY vs XX).  No state has said driver's licenses are definitive proof of sex for marriage.  Same goes for passport.  They are evidence of identity, but they don't change a person's sex (although the law allows clerks to issue licenses in most places by assuming they are correct - it's then on the married parties to be telling the truth, that is telling their sex according to the state's rules on marriage).

A marriage license doesn't make a marriage legal.  What makes a marriage legal is the license plus meeting the criteria.  If I had a passport that said "M" and a driver's license that said "F", that would not allow me to marry whoever I wanted (well, either sex anyhow) in any state by showing the "right" document (in fact, it only allow legal marriage to one sex in every state that doesn't allow same-sex marriage).

Unfortunately many people change their DL and get married into illegal, fraudulent marriages, not knowing that they are fraudulant.  And it's going to continue to hurt some people and their spouses.  It's one thing if you know what you are doing may not be legal, but it's quite another when people think it is.  It's not - you have to meet the state's definition of sex FOR MARRIAGE, which is different from their definition of sex for the DL.

Quote
I also know that OPM is about to issue a rule that will unify all Federal and State agencies requirements for gender designation change in IDs, and that is: to have a letter from a TG medical provider stating "that your transition into your new gender has been completed" (No SRS requirement is needed!)

Where can I find out about that?  How would the OPM have jurisdiction over, for example, birth certificates or driver's licenses, particularly considering the epic fail of REAL ID?  I can see them having jurisdiction for personnel matters in positions funded by the feds, but I'm trying to figure out the rest.

Quote from: Slanan on June 30, 2012, 05:44:48 PM
and that state uses chromosomes as their criteria, EVEN IF THE CLERK ISSUED THE LICENSE (because he or she probably won't ask for a chromosome test!), I couldn't legally marry anyone with the same chromosome type as me (XY vs XX). 

WOW. Bit draconian isn't it? So obviously people from those states, regardless of whatever operations are performed on them, can never change their gender marker.

Thank heavens we aren't that tight fisted here in Oz

Be safe, well and happy
Lotsa huggs
Catherine

They can change their gender marker - it's just that the gender marker has nothing to do with whether someone is male or female for the purpose of marriage.  But, yes, the law needs to change.  There's no universal legal definition of male and female in the US.  Every state agency just kind of wings it, and then the judges set their own rules.  (It's why several lesbian couples have gotten married in one area of Texas - the state judge said chromosomes matter, so an XX woman marrying a post-transition XY woman was 100% legal, by court order; the court decision was made to invalidate a marriage of an post-transition XY woman to an XY man, but ended up making it the first place in the nation where lesbians had a pretty good decision under which they could get married - at least if one was trans).

Here is a good question for us to explore, especially because I suspect some of us fall into this category:

IF you are ALREADY on Social Security Disability and then after the fact, you discover you are TG or otherwise LGBT, and you seek treatment which includes items appropriate to your gender, transition, or other needs...and since GID is expressly NOT covered in the U.S. by SSD or SSI, can they revoke your disability payments or otherwise disqualify you for SSD or SSI based on your GID or gender transition?

Eventually people who transition have their documents changed where and when each state allows it to reflect their new name and gender marker, and this includes going through SS to get your name and gender changed.

Also, I come from the only state that refuses to recognize a TG person for purposes of changing the gender on a birth certificate...this will throw some definite monkey wrenches my way. Can I possibly obtain a new birth certificate from the state I currently live in as part of a complete Identity change? Has anyone dealt with this? 

      When I came out to my SO she said that we were wed under false pretenses.   I just didn't know at the time that I would come to the point of needing to transition after 3 marriages, 3 kids, 8 grandkids.   I feel I need to be true to myself for the first time in my life regardless of the hurt I cause to my family.    Where does this lead to- I guess she can try suing me for false representation of myself to her.   I can't see any criminal intent besides that.

Dawn,

Gender has no implications regarding SSI. Payments remain based on income, need and of course available funds. I add that last part due to the condition of of Social security funds in general.