The world is not run by academics
Okay, so sex and gender are not the same thing. For most readers, this is not a revelation. Just to review: sex = biological, usually all-or-nothing; gender = socially/mentally constructed, gradient. You know this, right?
Anyway, I've been thinking lately about the various laws and constitutional amendments barring homosexual marriage around this country. To the best of my knowledge, these all define marriage as between one man and one woman, not as between one male and one female. (You see where I'm going with this.)
It would thus seem that two homosexuals could get married as long as one of them was transgendered, right? That would be a marriage between one woman and one man, though not between one male and one female. It seems like the courts would have to uphold this hypothetical marriage. (At least, they would if the couple's lawyer brought in a sociologist as an expert witness.) (Conversely, a heterosexual couple of which one member was transgendered could not get married because that would be a marriage between two women or two men.)
Apparently I'm more wrong than I thought. In today's paper, there was a story about a couple in Tennessee whose marriage has been nullified (I'm not sure what the right verb is) by the courts. The wife in this couple was born a male (the article said "born a man," which sounds painful for the mother) but has had a sex change operation. She also has breasts. Yet their marriage is no more because the state of Tennessee says it considers her a man.
The husband insists that neither of them is gay; he is only attracted to women, and his wife is only attracted to men.
At any rate, it seems that I was wrong about what the courts would find. In Tennessee, not only is a law defining marriage as a bond between one man and one woman interpreted as defining it as a bond between one male and one female, but in fact a bond between one male and one female can even be negated if one of them wasn't always the sex in question! I really don't get that. It seems to me that if this point she's not only a woman but also a female, then legally she should be able to marry a male man.
(Question: Would they then be fine with it if she married a woman? Or are transsexuals simply not allowed to marry anyone?)
Anyway, I've been thinking lately about the various laws and constitutional amendments barring homosexual marriage around this country. To the best of my knowledge, these all define marriage as between one man and one woman, not as between one male and one female. (You see where I'm going with this.)
It would thus seem that two homosexuals could get married as long as one of them was transgendered, right? That would be a marriage between one woman and one man, though not between one male and one female. It seems like the courts would have to uphold this hypothetical marriage. (At least, they would if the couple's lawyer brought in a sociologist as an expert witness.) (Conversely, a heterosexual couple of which one member was transgendered could not get married because that would be a marriage between two women or two men.)
Apparently I'm more wrong than I thought. In today's paper, there was a story about a couple in Tennessee whose marriage has been nullified (I'm not sure what the right verb is) by the courts. The wife in this couple was born a male (the article said "born a man," which sounds painful for the mother) but has had a sex change operation. She also has breasts. Yet their marriage is no more because the state of Tennessee says it considers her a man.
The husband insists that neither of them is gay; he is only attracted to women, and his wife is only attracted to men.
At any rate, it seems that I was wrong about what the courts would find. In Tennessee, not only is a law defining marriage as a bond between one man and one woman interpreted as defining it as a bond between one male and one female, but in fact a bond between one male and one female can even be negated if one of them wasn't always the sex in question! I really don't get that. It seems to me that if this point she's not only a woman but also a female, then legally she should be able to marry a male man.
(Question: Would they then be fine with it if she married a woman? Or are transsexuals simply not allowed to marry anyone?)