Reader comments · Arizona judge questions validity of trans marriage in divorce case · PinkNews

Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.


Arizona judge questions validity of trans marriage in divorce case

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Why would a transman want to give birth?

    Giving birth is a uniquely female experience. If you identify as male then giving birth is not an available option.

    OK so Thomas Beattie identifies as male but clearly stopped all hormone treatment in order to undergo that uniquely female experience – getting pregnant and giving birth and becoming the mother of 3 children (Thiomas Beattie is not their father).

    And then running to Oprah and whatever media outlet that is willing to pay.

    Thomas Beattie is a famewh0re.

    1. Helen Wilson 13 Aug 2012, 12:46pm

      People do all sorts of desperate things to have children. Why would a trans man not in desperation to have a family use that part of himself he despises so much to be a parent? You are making the classic mistake of confusing sex with gender. Did you ever think that Thomas Beattie could not afford the $100,000+ to have female to male lower surgery? Like so many other trans people in America he was forced financially to make a compromise on who he is. If having kids has has put some light back into his life, who are you to judge him and define who he is?

      1. But if he identifies as male, why would he even want to get pregnant?

        Your reply makes no sense.

        Why would he want all those female hormones sluicing about through his system for before, during and after the pregnancy.

        And why would he want to repeat the experience again 2 years later?

        And why did he sell his story to anyone with a chequebook?

        Being pregnant is a uniquely female experience after all.

      2. So he ‘despised’ being female (your words) yet decided to endanger his own mental health by exposing his body to more female hormones than he’d ever had before (by getting pregnant).

        And then decided to repeat the experience.

        I call bullsh!t.

        ‘He’ is a famewh0re.

        1. Helen Wilson 13 Aug 2012, 1:50pm

          CIS gendered privileged much dAVID!

          Couples sell houses, get into debt they can never repay to have IVF, others take the emotionally challenging decision to use donated sperm or eggs and others use surrogates. All of these things are damaging in some way yet for the people who are going through them they take that risk to fulfill the biological desire to have children. The decision of CIS gendered couples in these situations are no different to those Beatie and his wife made.

          1. But if his male identity was so strong then why would he deliberately endanger his mental health by getting pregnant – not once but twice.

            (And bear in mind that a pregnancy is 9 months; and all his hormone treatments would have stopped before pregnancy).

      3. If his publicity-seeking and incompetence costs us legal recognition and marriage then “we” will be extremely aggrieved and rightly angry people, that’s who.

      4. For the record: he does seem to have said, in the context of saying he would not be pregnant again, that he has now had genital surgery. Presumably that was before he became bankrupt.

    2. He could have kids, his wife couldnt. He did the necessary for them to have kids. In his position I probably woulda adopted but it doesn’t make him less of a guy, just someone who was willing to go the extra mile to be a father.

      1. So he deliberately endangered his own mental health to become a ‘mother’?

        What incredibly irresponsible parenting.

        Otherwise then clearly being trans is something you can switch on or off at will?

        Is that so?

        Or is Thomas Beattie a famewh0re who did all this for fame and money (as is evidenced by the fact that he sprinted to any news agency which waved a chequebook at him.

    3. How DARE he not conform to your cissexualist notions of how trans people should behave. Clearly he’s not REALLY trans because you are the arbiter of who is and isn’t.. because as a cis man who have a right to decide what everyone else is.

      Go fornicate yourself.

      1. Aggressive and hysterical response from Xaria (as always).

        My question is valid.

        Why would a transman deliberately endanger his own mental health by exposing himself to massive quantities of female hormones through pregnancy? Surely that is irresponsible in the extreme?

        Maybe he is trans but the fact that he can cast aside his hormone treatments so easily simply indicates that his identity as a ‘man’ is not very strong.

        Your reply ‘he wanted children because his wife couldn’t’ is quite simply an inadequate response.

        And what make you of th e fact that Beattie remains willing to wh0re his story to whoever waves a chequebook at him.

        1. Katie Kool-eyes 13 Aug 2012, 1:56pm

          That is the same as asking why a trans woman would donate semen to conceive a child. It’s really not too hard to work out. Genitals does not = gender.

          Have you considered that he ay have tried other avenues first such as adoption etc. If he wants a child, he’s completely in his right to do so. The fact that he is carrying the child is a mute point.

          Instead of taking a swing at bigotted people on other pink news storys, i suggest you actually read up on a few articles regarding trans people before you come up with such rediculous and judgemental questions.

          1. Simply calling me bigotted and judgemental is a lazy response.

            I am trying to understand the responses but they just all seem so inadequate.

            A transwoman donating semen can take about 5 minutes.

            Carrying a child to term takes far longer – 9 months – and has massive physical and hormonal effects on the body.

            Is being trans just something you can switch on and off?

      2. Paddyswurds 14 Aug 2012, 3:33pm

        She is not a male and never will be and doesn’t conform to any notion of how anyone should behave. She is a woman with a beard who has had radical mastectomy, If she had the money, mutilating her female repro organs will also not make her a man. If her grave is dug up in 200 years, forensics would determine that the grave held a man, not a woman, mutilated or not. This
        woman is clearly someone of very low intellectand as dAVID above said, is someone who was unstable enough to instigate all this in an effort to make some handy money and her home life clearly indicates that all was not well there.
        Those who advised her and treated her before she embarked on this voyage have a lot of questions to answer For those who are readying their keyboard for a tirade of abuse , I say this: I recognise that there are those who feel they were born in the wrong body, but I refuse to believe that mutilating their bodies will reprogram their brain.. .. .

    4. I actually agree with you. What a vile human this “thing” has turned out to be.

  2. wait.. he has a $5,000/month mortgage????

    what are they doing in a half million dollar home?

    1. It’s all those media fees ‘he’ charges.

      I expect this current story is yet anoher money making scam.

      1. Why is the word “he” in quotes? WTF? I’m seriously shocked at the anti-trans garbage in these comments. Did you know that even Iran recognizes trans people?

        1. Because in my opinion (and it’s only MY opinion) Thomas Beattie is not a man.

          ‘His’ ability to expose his body to massively elevated quantities of female hormones (which being pregnant involves) over a sustained period of time; and then to repeat the experience, does not indicate to me that he is a man.

          It indicates to me that ‘he’ was ready and willing to discard his male identity the moment it became convenient.

          And his willingness to sell his story to anyone who waved a chequebook is another indicator of why type of person Beattie is – a famewh0re.

          1. You can’t just say “it’s my opinion” and that be the end of the argument. Your opinion means absolutely nothing compared to facts. If I said “the sky is green”, would that be a valid “opinion”? You’re a horrible person, and you obviously have a horrible misunderstanding of what it means to be trans. I’m not going to fight on a blog, so this is my last comment to you. Have a good day. And please, educate yourself a little bit before commenting on anything trans related.

          2. The facts are that this ‘man’ got pregnant, not once, but twice.

            The facts are this ‘man’ stopped all hormone treatments to get pregnant, and this had zero impact on his mental health.

            Being pregnant is a uniquely female experience, you know.

            This ‘man’ is a famewh0re.

  3. And before people start whning on about how he identifies as male and that should be enough – well do you also agree that if I decide to self-identify as an Afro-Caribbean person then I should have that right.

    Fair enough I am NOT ethnically Afro-Caribbean. But then again if a ‘man’ who does not produce (or take) male hormones (and Beattie wouldn’t have taken any male hormones as these would prevent pregnanc); and then had ‘his’ eggs fertilised and carried ‘his’ child to full term in his uterus and then gave birth to his child through ‘his’ vagina, then clearly he dioes not identify very strongly as male.

  4. Wouldn’t all those female pregnancy hormones coursing through ‘his’ body made Thomas Beattie’s life a living hell during pregnancy and after?

    Such a living hell that ‘he’ decided to repeat the experience less than 2 years later.

    1. Nixi Otemba Bongers 13 Aug 2012, 1:03pm

      having a bit of a problem with transfolks David? get over it

      1. No – but a trans’man’ who exposes ‘his’ body to the massive levels of female hormone that being pregnant involves without any subsequence mental health issues; and to then REPEAT the experience; sounds to me like ‘he’ is not trans.

        And you do accept that ‘his’ willingness to sell his story to anyone who waves a chequebook at him is very suspicious?

        Why on earth would a responsible mother wan to expose ‘his’ children to that (Thomas Beattie is their mother – you all accept this I hope?)

        1. “sounds to me like he’s not trans”

          And in what way are you qualified to decide that?

          No and I don’t accept that Thomas is the children’s mother. He is their father. Granted he is not biologically his children’s father, but then if a man adopts is he still his children’s father.

          Now please take your cis privilege and go sit in the bigot corner with all the other dinosaurs.

          1. My opinion that he is not trans is just as valid as your opinion that he is.

            How exactly are you qualified to decide that he is.

            You know no more about ‘him’ than I do.

            What is indisputable is his willingness to run to any media outlet who will pay money.

        2. “And you do accept that ‘his’ willingness to sell his story to anyone who waves a chequebook at him is very suspicious?”

          I know, right? Why the hell would a man who has filed for bankruptcy be desperate for money?

          1. What about principles?

          2. Paddyswurds 14 Aug 2012, 3:45pm

            Why is a bankrupt who has never had a full time job, the owner of a $1 million plus mortgage. I suspect that when tis pair devised their tawdry little scheme they expected it to be a lot more lucrative than it turned out. After all a trans man having a child is shocking news, a trans having three kids is obviously attention seeking and the money for the freak show soon dries up. The media cottoned on to what the rest of us were asking….. Why was she not desperate to have children Before she embarked on attempts to change her sexuality. A very sad woman and I fear for her future….

          3. The bankruptcy filing was only March this year, after his business failed.

          4. Paddyswurds 14 Aug 2012, 10:17pm

            Yeah, the business of being, as someone above said, a fameho….

    2. I find it absolutely hilarious how a gay person can be “different” but as soon as you bring up trans people, it’s suddenly not the same. We are ALL different from what our gender usually calls for. That’s why there is a T in LGBT. Your use of quotes when saying “he” is absolutely disgusting. You are part of the problem whether you want to admit it or not.

      1. Well I find it absolutely hilarious that no-one is willing to address the elephant in the room – the fact that being pregnant involves exposure to elevated volumes of female hormones; and how this exposure to female hormones had zero impact on his mental health. So little did it bother him in fact that he went off to get pregnant again.

        And he was oh so very willing to be interviewed by anyone with a chequebook?

        1. Yeah. What kind of man who has filed for bankruptcy would take interviews for money?

          Apparently, in dAVID’s world, it’s better to let your family languish on welfare than (God forbid!) talk about your story to journalists. I wonder why dAVID’s even on this website when he seems to hate news so much…

          1. The bankruptcy filing was only March this year, after his business failed. So all the photo-shoots (starting with The Advocate), films, TV appearances, and interviews before that were whilst he was a small business owner, and, from reports, was buying a rather expensive home. But he had toddlers to support and might have been saving for SRS too.

        2. Paddyswurds 14 Aug 2012, 4:32pm

          .. …You simply won’t get straight answers from the trans crowd because they don’t have any and instead resort to abuse of anyone who DARES comment on their condition and their attempts to be what they never can be This American freak show has not in any way furthered their cause and instead has rendered the whole calamitous mess a laughing stock , much like the attention seeking Chastity Bono, who is desperately attempting to make up for the attention she didn’t get from equally attention seeking parents .. which is sad for their whole community

    3. Over-reaction much duhvid? People do all sorts of things to have children and this really is no different.

      1. But not everyone is willing to run to anyone willing to pay for the story?

        Thomas Beattie certainly is.

      2. Paddyswurds 14 Aug 2012, 4:37pm

        Why didn’t she have the children BEFORE she started this trans business…. Because there would be no money in doing it that way that’s why.!!!

  5. If his birth certificate says “male” and his driver’s license says “male” then the marriage is legally valid. A judge in Arizona is not allowed to question the validity of a birth certificate from another U.S. State. We have a thing here called “Full Faith and Credit” in our constitution. Unless Congress specifically makes an exemption, then every State has to recognize every other States’ contracts.

    1. I think you overestimate the reach of the “full faith and credit” clause. States do not have to recognize the laws or court rulings of other states generally if they violate their “public policy”. The federal courts never used the Constitution’s full faith and credit clause to require a state to recognize inter-racial marriages from other states if it violated that state’s laws. So wether or not this man’s marriage is valid in Arizona, does not depend on the laws of Hawaii.

      1. He has a birth certificate. If Arizona won’t recognize that then our whole union is useless. I’m not talking about some simple court ruling. It would be unimaginable for Arizona not to accept his birth certificate. Just because the judge watches Oprah doesn’t change anything.

        1. Not only do many states not honour other states’ birth certificates, they often don’t honour their own when it comes to Trans people.

          There’s plenty of caselaw about this.

          1. Beatie has been playing with fire around the lives of others all along.

    2. Different US states treat post-operative transexuals differently: some follow the birth certificate while others allow it to be updated. This logically means that the first gay-marriage in the US definitely involved a transsexual! (Although, following Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, we can’t be certain where the marriage took place or who was involved :-)

      Still, a nice stab in the eye to those who want to delete the “T” from “LGBT”!

      1. Again, this doesn’t matter. It’s a birth certificate. We’re not talking about a marriage license. Congress already passed DOMA that says states don’t have to recognize them. Birth certificates are non-negotiable. Arizona doesn’t have a choice. This is nothing but a moronic judge.

        1. So why is Beatie quoted as saying it was great Arizona had recognised a “trans marriage”? With a male birth certificate from Hawai’i, his marriage in Hawai’i (which doesn’t do same-sex marriage) should be a standard heterosexual one, which Arizona courts would have no problem ending. But he seems to have raised the question himself. As he has with all the other publicity.

          Perhaps Beatie is invoking his birth sex or his having born the children to ensure custody of the children.

          And if the judge finds marriages involving someone whose birth certificate gender marker has been changed are not necessarily valid, a whole lot of heterosexual people’s lives could be set to be ruined. All for one publicity hound. Already fxxcxwxxs here are painting them as gay marriages.

      2. I’m just amazed they changed it given he’s not had the full op. I mean technically he’s both O_o

        1. And I only say this because I know what US law can be like. I am not trying to deny him anything. Just curious

      3. The first same-sex marriage in the US would certainly have been one where a marriage continued after the change of sex of one of the partners took place/was legally recognised. I don’t think any US states required divorce in such circumstances (as UK law currently does).

        Marriages after someone’s change of sex has been legally recognised were all heterosexual until the first state made marriage equal for everyone.

        You might want to note that many of us are damned offended to be termed transsexual (or transgender) after completing transition; only do that if you are sure the individual identities in that manner, and never label all the people who have transitioned in that way. Yes, I know, in the UK, the Equality Act terms everyone protected on grounds of “gender reassignment” “transsexual persons” but the civil servants who wrote that and ensured it could not be amended were total pxxxxxs having a larf, who should not be emulated.

    3. Paddyswurds 14 Aug 2012, 4:45pm

      ….”We have a thing here called “Full Faith and Credit”” and this freak show makes a mockery of that Faith and Credit don’t you think. She broke the terms of Faith and Credit when she retained her fully functional repro. organs, and as such remained a woman albeit a woman with a beard. So you are wrong and the Judge quite correct. Arizona has not legalised same sex marriage and this couple are clearly same sex. What is in her head does not stand up under law.

  6. famewhore…you are a geg dAVID…Admit it…you just like saying the naughty words…and disagreeing with people for the sake of disagreeing…much like a 10yo kid does. famewhore famewhore he’s just a famewhore…lol! Grow a set….but I guess you are entitled to’your opinion’ not that it counts for much…in my opinion!!

    1. But he is Blanche, he is.

      Otherwise please explain why every couple of months Beattie pops up again to sell the latest developments in the story.

      It also makes him a very irresponsible mother to be subjecting his children to this level of media scrutiny.

    2. Paddyswurds 14 Aug 2012, 4:51pm

      ……. ” Grow a set…” and donate them to you or have you already had a “set” and got rid, eh? Shaney……

  7. So the main argument in court will be; can trans man who uses his female organs still claim to be a man

    1. No, the argument in court will be if Arizona has to recognize a Hawaii birth certificate even if they don’t want to. And the answer is that they do. This judge is a moron. This has nothing to do with transgender people.

      1. ‘…(judge) cannot find any legal authority that defines a man as someone who is able to give birth…’

        clearly judge has a problem with thomas’ birth certificate, in his opinion there is discrepancy in description

        1. My point is that it’s not up for him to decide if Hawaii’s birth certificate process is invalid. He has to accept other states’ documents unless congress specifically tells him he doesn’t. As far as he’s concerned, a legal man married a legal woman.

          1. from wikipedia:

            states make their own laws about birth certificates and marriage, and state courts have varied in their application of such laws to transsexual people. Several courts have come to the conclusion that sex reassignments are not recognized for the purpose of marriage, including courts in Illinois Texas and New York.

            In Littleton v. Prange, 9 SW3d 223 (1999),[5]Christie Lee Littleton, a post-operative male-to-female transsexual, argued to the Texas 4th Court of Appeals that her marriage to her genetically male husband (deceased) was legally binding and hence she was entitled to his estate. The court decided that plaintiff’s gender is equal to her chromosomes, which were XY (male). The court subsequently invalidated her revision to her birth certificate, as well as her Kentucky marriage license, ruling “We hold, as a matter of law, that Christie Littleton is a male. As a male, Christie cannot be married to another male….

          2. …Her marriage to Jonathon was invalid, and she cannot bring a cause of action as his surviving spouse.” Plaintiff appealed to SCOTUS but it denied her Writ of Certiorari on 2000-10-02.

          3. …In re Estate of Gardiner (2001)[6] considers and rejects Littleton, preferring M.T. v. J.T. instead. In this case, the Kansas Appellate Court concludes that “[A] trial court must consider and decide whether an individual was male or female at the time the individual’s marriage license was issued and the individual was married, not simply what the individual’s chromosomes were or were not at the moment of birth. The court may use chromosome makeup as one factor, but not the exclusive factor, in arriving at a decision. Aside from chromosomes, we adopt the criteria set forth by Professor Greenberg. On remand, the trial court is directed to consider factors in addition to chromosome makeup, including: gonadal sex, internal morphologic sex, external morphologic sex, hormonal sex, phenotypic sex, assigned sex and gender of rearing, and sexual identity.”

          4. The Kansas Supreme court overturned the Appeals court decision.

            “Professor Greenberg notes that the court, in determining who qualifies as a male and who qualifies as a female, “had before it the thorough and well-reasoned appellate opinion as well as the latest scientific and international developments on the issue. Instead of relying on these authorities, the court based its decision in part on a 1970s definition of sex contained in Webster’s dictionary. Males are the ‘sex that fertilize the ovum and beget offspring.’ ‘Females “produce ova and bear offspring.”‘ The court decided that this everyday general understanding of the terms male and female preclude J’Noel qualifying as a female. Under this ‘plain ordinary meaning,’ millions of infertile people may no longer be considered ‘men’ and ‘women.'”

            They’re not too keen on this “spherical Earth” theory either, let alone Evil-ution.

          5. all i’m saying here is that this case is not straight forward as Tony seems to imply and my initial point still stands

          6. Paddyswurds 14 Aug 2012, 10:23pm

            which clearly shows that the Hawaiian legal cert was false. Beattie is clearly still qa fertile woman beard or no…

      2. Paddyswurds 14 Aug 2012, 4:57pm

        A birth cert means feck all in this case. Someone made a boo boo or worse broke the law by changing this womans birth cert. The record of what gender the child was a second and a half after she was born is the correct authority. However she got the cert changed needs to be investigated in Hawaii, frankly and someones head should roll. I wonder was there money involved?

  8. Not trying to put a spanner in the works, but how did he get his birth certificate changed to male when he wasn’t born male? Especially as he has female sex organs. I am relatively sure that here in the UK, whether you have female sex organs or not you can’t change the sex you were born as on your birth certificate, though I maybe wrong.

    1. And please don’t start leaping down on me and selecting thumbs down…This is just a question not a state what I think of transgender people. To me if you feel you have been born the wrong sex, and I fully except that this happens. Nature can and does get it wrong, then it is your right to correct the error and live the life you deserve. I am just wondering how this was done. I know how US law and opinions can work.

      1. stephanie lee 14 Aug 2012, 1:50am

        In UK you can do so provided you fulfill the requirements for a gender recognition certificate. You will be issued with a new birth certificate and your old one will be sealed. You may then enjoy all benefits of your new legal status such as marriage, inheritance rights etc.
        If you are MtF you may retire and receive your state pension at 60, if you are FtM you must wait the extra 5 years to 65.

        1. stephanie lee 14 Aug 2012, 1:55am

          It is no longer necessary to have medical treatment to change your body in order to qualify for a gender recognition certificate, this enables those who are unable to have such treatment for medical reasons to still change their legal sex to match their gender.

          1. However, you must be diagnosed with “Gender Dysphoria”. Any Intersex condition precludes such a diagnosis under the WHO’s ICD-10 manual.

            This means that someone who has XX (usually female) chromosomes but was born with a male body, and transitions to look female, cannot get a Gender Recognition Certificate.

            It’s a glitch in the law.

        2. The original is definitely not sealed. In fact the law says it must be provided if someone has the details of the new one. There being 2 registrations of the same birth on the public, online indexes makes it easy to spot those who have changed legal gender. Official agencies just need to look at the special national register, which may be available to hackers and newspapers too. And there are lots of situations where the recognition doesn’t really apply. Over half those eligible don’t apply, including all those who need to be only known as the sex with which they have always identified, unless they are leaving the country for good.

          But, yes, it was the first provision in the world not to require surgery.

        3. That’s excellent Stephanie and thank you for actually reading what I’d written. Seems many didn’t read what I’d put and seemed to see it as if I was in agreement to what the judge had said when I hadn’t!! I only questioned our laws and that I wasn’t totally sure :)

          1. Paddyswurds 14 Aug 2012, 5:04pm

            Also thank you for clearing up my questions bove about Hawaii and the cert change….

    2. “whether you have female sex organs or not you can’t change the sex you were born as on your birth certificate,”

      Incorrect since the Gender Recognition Act of 2004. A new BC is issued.

    3. Tan Gentile 14 Aug 2012, 9:17am


      You are quite wrong in fact.

      In the UK one can have all of one’s paperwork–including birth certificate, passport and so on–changed to reflect one’s new gender after transition. This is not based on any particular surgical interventions, but on one’s living in the world as that gender for a period of time.

      So happy we have the Gender Recognition Certificate in the UK!



      1. Your happiness is based on false beliefs.

        The original paperwork is not changed at all, and by law must be made available to anyone who requests it. One has to get a mental disorder diagnosis by a practitioner on a small list of approved people, which is insulting and expensive. Surgery doesn’t lead to automatic recognition, so be can be the wrong legal gender over a year after changing sex. A very intimate file is created (making people relive trauma) and retained permanently to allow the recognition to be revoked. One has to be listed on a special register that is available to many agencies, kept on computer, and under questionable security. No old records are sealed.

        Under-18s are excluded, and foreign nationals have to apply for their own UK recognition.

        Many problems intended to prevent same-sex marriage too, but some are scheduled to be removed if current proposals get enacted, but possibly not all.

        So, great if you don’t need surgery, very bad for kids and privacy.

      2. Did you not see this Zoe and Tan “I am relatively sure that here in the UK, whether you have female sex organs or not you can’t change the sex you were born as on your birth certificate, though I maybe wrong..”? I DID say I wasn’t sure!!!!

        And not sure why I got the thumbs down. I’m all for it! I have nothing against gender re-assignment! And I did say I wasn’t sure of our laws!!!

        “And please don’t start leaping down on me and selecting thumbs down…This is just a question not a state what I think of transgender people. To me if you feel you have been born the wrong sex, and I fully except that this happens. Nature can and does get it wrong, then it is your right to correct the error and live the life you deserve. I am just wondering how this was done. I know how US law and opinions can work.”

        I knew I’d get them because people don’t READ what people write!!!

    4. People have been medically transitioning for more than 60 years. And in the USA most states changed their laws decades ago to keep pace with this reality. In my opinion changes should be allowed because they original entry was in error. In this case Mr Beatty was never female, he’s always been male in the place it counts: His brain.

      1. Most states it is not by legislation but legal precedent, which is very vulnerable to contrary findings.

    5. In the UK one cannot change the original birth certificate, no, but the Gender Recognition Panel can allow the issue of a second one with new details, and that then becomes one’s new gender. The first remains available, and one has to be listed on a special national register. The process does not require surgery.

      In the US it varies state by state, according to location of one’s original registration, with some not allowing any change of legal sex. Most require surgery, but some don’t. A court process is usually involved. Changing a US passport is now like a UK Passport, with only a doctor’s letter needed. Driving license varies by state.

  9. This judge is an ignorant bigot. AFAIK a state has NEVER invalidate and existing marriage involving a transsexual person. The theory being the marriage was valid when entered into and only the parties involved may bring it to an end. If he invalidates the marrige In the short term it will cause chaos for thousands of existing marriages across the nation. In the long term we’ll finally get a official national standard that finally puts an end to such BS like this judge and that one in Texas (google Nikki Araguz).

    1. The judge must be sure he has the power to act in a matter. If Beatie has raised issues making it seem possibly not a valid marriage in that state (by his having crowed about it being a trans marriage, or perhaps claiming full custody due to bearing the children), then Beatie is the one potentially destroying the lives of thousands of transsexual people, and their loved ones.

      And the right-wing (and the RadFems) would love to have a new cause in which we were the new boogie men. Do you seriously think any other groups would fight, state-by-state, for our marriages to be other than same-sex ones if Beatie were the poster-boy?

  10. Why would you want to identify as being male, and then give birth like a female? Doesn’t make sense. Why not just say I don’t identify as being any gender?

    1. No state in the US has provision to re-register anyone as no-gender. His chest reconstruction surgery, testo usage (when not pregnant or preparing for pregnancy), and (we hear) finally “bottom” surgery, as well as applying for a change of birth certificate, marrying as the husband, and all the headlines “pregnant man”, attest to his identity as a man.

      He, and those (probably at least hundreds, world-wide) like him, are simply one of many, many, sex- and gender-diversities. I don’t understand him, but I’m certain he wouldn’t understand my very opposite need to be female (and only seen as female) either.

      So no wonder you don’t understand. That’s OK. We all just have to understand that there really are a many such diversities of identity, and need (just as there are of ethnicities, disabilities, sexualities, beliefs, etc.), who all have the same human rights.

  11. I hope people understand, when such a story circulates, that the sex and gender diversities are a very wide range, so Beatie can encompass pregnancy within his identity as a man, but not having a female chest, whilst other diversities cannot ever imagine being able to do that, and would indeed rather be dead. On the women’s side, some can switch genders daily, or wait until they retire to transition, or father children, or store sperm, whilst others try to remove our parts whilst infants, found any exxcxxxxion literally nauseating, and find it incredibly upsetting to see another woman pregnant when we cannot be (and PN is currently serving me ads for maternity wear…).

    Just as with all the vast diversities within ethnicities, disabilities, sexualities, beliefs, etc., all have the same human rights, and must be allowed to access them. One exercising their rights must not threaten those of others, otherwise everyone should live in fear. But unfortunately that does happen.

    1. Paddyswurds 15 Aug 2012, 4:46pm

      This vile woman thought of no-one except herself when she embarked on this selfish course of action. I find it very hard to believe that she didn’t think of having children BEFORE she tried to change her gender. She could have went away and quietly had her children and Then embark on this silly path which has so deliciously blown up in her face as it always was going to.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.