Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

US: Oklahoma Judge denies name-change for those transitioning

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. It must be unconstitutional to base a judicial decision on the Bible.

    1. It’s Oklahoma, they don’t believe in the separation of church and state…

  2. Another day, another christo-facist tyrannical pig.

    How I wish we could send the fundamentalist filth to an island somewhere and just them them slaughter one another over their putrid dogmatic cr@P, and let the rest of the human race get on without their thick-witted backwards looking bilge.

  3. Wow, I wonder if the judge also wears clothes of mixed fibres (Leviticus 19:19), I wonder if he ever eats shellfish, which is an abomination according to Leviticus 11:10 – mind you, if he ever gets sacked for this woeful decision, he can always sell his daughter into slavery for extra income – which is approved of in Exodus 21:7.
    When will these sanctimonious bigots realise that the world has moved on.
    Perhaps he also disapproves of surgery to people who were born with malformities such as a cleft lip or conjoined twins. If he believes in God, then he also has to believe that God granted man the wisdom to overcome these things and would approve of mistakes being rectified.

  4. “It is notable that Genesis 1:27-28 states: ‘So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them… The DNA code shows God meant for them to stay male and female.”
    Is this the same ‘god’ that put all the different skin colours on different continents far away from each other, with the intent that they should not mix and have inter-racial marriages?
    Genesis is not a legal text. So should not be used to make legal decisions.

    1. Different races on different continents so they would not mix. I don’t like where you are going with this comment.

      1. I don’t think he’s necessarily advocating that. I think he’s only referring to a interpretation that was once far more common in theological thought, especially in pre-Enlightenment Protestant Europe.

        The Afrikaners of South Africa practiced a form of Calvinism that believed God wanted them to strictly segregate and rule everyone else, which is why Apartheid had so many religious fundamentalist supporters in its day. The same religious justification was used for American slavery and segregation, and there are still many, many religious Southerners who believe it as theological orthodoxy.

        But really, people who use such sanctimony to justify the oppression or mistreatment of other human beings, are only projecting their own prejudices and calling them God’s.

  5. I am unusually speechless! What a horrible, bigoted, nasty, disgrace to his profession. Horrible, simply horrible. At least in the UK you can change your name.

  6. He defeats himself with his own argument “If you’re born male, you stay male, according to the study I’ve done on DNA. If you’re born female, you stay female.”
    Doesn’t that prove the point of transgender – that the applicant was born female, trapped in a man’s body?
    It’s time they amended the constitution to recognise LGBT rights as being equal to all others.

    1. He also fails to explain how male and female names–which are *culturally determined*–are the same thing as physical gender.

      Robin and Ashley were boy’s names for centuries; now they’re more often used for girls. Does that make the Robin Hood stories fraudulent?

      For that matter, whom is defrauded when you go by the “wrong” gender’s name? It’s not like transfolk are trying to cheat people out of their money. Graves must just have a powerful fear of marrying a hot young thing and finding a surprise in her underwear.

  7. What a bastard! That’s all I can say.

  8. The argument that you can always tell someone’s gender from their DNA is flawed. Androgen insensitivity means plenty of natal women have a Y chromosome and are genetically indistinguishable from natal men.

    The judge used flawed science from a biased sample of expert witnesses; he also refers to his own religious bias as influencing his decision. These ladies should appeal the decision and the judge needs to recuse himself from ruling on similar cases in the future.

  9. http://billkumpe.blogspot.co.uk/2008/07/judge-bill-graves-connect-dots.html

    District Judge Bill Graves wrote a letter to an Oklahoma Bar Association committee criticizing the suggested changes in the code. These changes are along the lines of wording in the American Bar Association code.”These policies are not based on laws enacted by Congress or the State Legislature, but on proposals of the liberal, pro-homosexual American Bar Association,” Graves said.

    Judge Rabid Homophobe, transphobic and unfit for judicial office in any Court in the USA.

  10. What about XXY individuals, intersex babies and natural born women with XY chromosomes?

    1. Oh, those people clearly don’t exist, because they don’t fit into Mr. Graves’s narrow worldview.

      Rather than change his mind to fit the evidence, Graves would rather the universe please conform to what’s in his head. Reality, meanwhile, refuses to do him this “courtesy.”

  11. So according to him an androgen insensitive woman who will be XY chromosomally, but without any surgery will look completely female at birth, is actually male and despite all appearances always was.

    It follows that by his logic, once these people reach puberty and their condition is discovered (often it is not diagnosed until then) they should all be forced to change all their documents to reflect what their DNA says rather than the gender in which they were raised from birth! By his failure to order this the law is unequally applied. So in order to be consistent it follows that all medically intersexed people must be forced to alter their names to accord with their DNA rather than their bodily attributes from birth. This could cause chaos I feel.

    It gets worse if you consider the rare people who are chimeras and thus have two sets of DNA. Such people can indeed have both XY and XX tissue within them so presumably this idiot thinks they should have two names! What a moron!

    1. Renee Woodard 16 Sep 2012, 9:43pm

      Re: middle paragraph: Actually these CAIS women’s DNA does determine their sex, but their chromosomes do not. A study of all the DNA of the genes making the proteins for the androgen receptors will show that some of the base pairs are mutated making one or more of these genes non functional. That’s why these women have Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome.

      I completely agree in the case of chimeras!

      Everyone, make sure that all understand that knowing the chromosomes someone has, does not give much information about that person’s DNA.

  12. Frances Taylor 16 Sep 2012, 5:29pm

    Judge Graves needs to recuse himself from these two cases, go home, and contemplate his gross stupidity.

  13. Land of the Free. Except if you’re facing a superstitious bigot with power over your life who appeals to supernatural belief to justify a legal ruling.

  14. Jen Marcus 16 Sep 2012, 5:58pm

    This matter clearly should be appealed.Charges should also be leveled against him to the Judicial Tenure Commission as being unfit to be a judge for mixing religion and the law and using reasoning based on pseudo science.It is hoped that he will be “kicked off the bench !” He also should be debarred as an attorney and at that point if he wants to be religious minister then let him do so, but he has no business being on the bench or in the Bar.Point of fact ,if there is any fraud here ,he is the one that is perpetrating it acting like a judge!

  15. what a bigoted, intolerant fool.

  16. Read some other statements from this judge….. Conclusion; not fit to be on the bench!
    The agenda of this judge is not to uphold the law, but only what he thinks is right…

  17. That There Other David 16 Sep 2012, 6:33pm

    Another reason why religion is repulsive to anyone with a brain. It nearly always leads to hypocrisy and intolerance.

  18. In ok they may not believe in separation but federally they do. I guess born a bigot always a bigot. After doing some research on the name change laws the “fraudulent purposes” judge idiot refers to really only pertains to attempting to fraud the government or avoid debt, neither of which are occurring in these cases. I say get another judge because this one has some major bias and should be removed from the bench.

  19. Genesis 1:27
    New International Version (NIV)
    27 So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.

    So if God created man and woman in his own image does that make God a katoey? Think about it.

    1. Valerie Keefe 18 Sep 2012, 11:59pm

      A non operative trans woman is just that, a woman, not a blend of binary genders.

  20. Fiona Nightingale 16 Sep 2012, 7:01pm

    This is so stupid, especially since most transgender people can’t afford to get the surgery and thus could never get a name change according to this standard.

    In my weblink I’m starting a petition to have GRS covered under the affordable care act. Please sign.

    1. GRS is covered for murderers in prison as a medical necessity, so should definitely be covered under the ACA. Good work, Fiona!

  21. There is one point mentioned that’s not so easy to refute, and I’d appreciate feedback on the neglected issue:
    That someone could “unwittingly” marry someone [they consider] of the same gender.
    Is this not a valid concern? I’m sure that most transgender people disclose their gender transition before entering a committed relationship, but are they obligated to do so? Some people (obviously) are very (in)sensitive to transgender identity, and legal issues COULD arise from finding out too late.
    As a gay man, I feel that we in the LGBT community often ignore our ethical responsibilities in pursuit of equality and recognition, and I think that issue needs careful handling. If we ignore ethics at this stage, or overly restrict ourselves, we only work to extend the waiting period before true equality.

    1. Gays / lesbians and transgendered people deal with completely different issues – unless the transgendered person is ALSO gay. Sexual orientation and sexual identity are two completely different things, and your comment displays a shocking ignorance. What about all the women who unwittingly married gay men? That is a much larger issue than the possibility of someone unwittingly marrying a transperson, and has much worse effects.

      1. Sadie – It didn’t sound like Mark was attempting to be inappropriate – it read to me as a search for information asked as politely as possible considering the topic. Instead of attacking him it was a perfect opportunity to educate to educate someone who seems willing to learn.

      2. Sue Fletcher 16 Sep 2012, 10:36pm

        Sadie, if you are genuinely concerned about someone displaying ignorance on trans issues, then surely the best response should be to educate them, rather than hitting out with a supercilious attack that does nothing to further trans awareness. Hell, I’m trans and I stumble on some of the ethical niceties, so how on earth are cis-folk supposed to know?

    2. Transphobic bigots should be obligated to disclose that fact about themselves before a relationship gets too serious. That would solve this problem.

  22. It is very infuriating! he is not a doctor. He is not running a Parrish. It is his right to have an opinion outside of court as per the first amendment BUT when you are a judge you loose the right to use your first amendment privileges to its fullest extent in court.

    There is nothing fair about this, he uses his apparent bigotry to pass judgement on a topic his little brain could never understand. Its like stupid people who think they can turn lesbians straight -.-.

  23. Rev. Andrew 16 Sep 2012, 7:48pm

    You can’t use religious text for something like this!! & Seriously, if someone wants to be different this should be celebrated!!!

  24. Where does this leave my Granddaughter Jamie?

  25. she should not “appeal” the judge’s decision.
    She should sue him for abusing his position on the bench.
    An officer of the law, appointed to adjudicate the secular laws of the land, has absolutely NO place quoting the Bible or any other religious text when making his decisions.

  26. The only not so bad thing about this is that the judge is a county court judge, not a state-level or federal court judge. This has little to no effect on rulings in other county courts, and none on higher courts. County judge is an elective position, but subsequent elections are for retention and normally rank at the bottom of voter interest. Oklahoma County is normally a little more liberal that the rural part of the state, but I haven’t heard anything about this that I recall. Time to get some publicity going!

  27. Renee Woodard 16 Sep 2012, 9:20pm

    I agree, Mundo! This judge is a fool and an a**hole. If he knew more about genes, chromosomes and DNA he’d know that there are XY women and XX men. This situation is caused by individual genes; if he is trying to judge someone by their genes, he would have to sequence the whole genome, every single base pair. Then he wouldn’t know how to interpret the data and have to hire an expert witness…..

    If the judge had instead learned about human developmental biology, he might know there is range of conditions called intersex; one of these used to be called a hermaphrodite (no offense meant). How would he determine these people’s sex? Some intersex conditions might have ay genetic cause, however some are due to chemical/hormonal conditions at specific times in the womb. In these situations genes are not the main cause. Finding all about the person’s genes won’t tell him their sex.

    Some consider TS’s to be intersex because they have gonads of one sex and the brain of the other.

  28. It seems to me we are missing the even more major point here… Since when is it not an individulal’s right to change their name to any name they cnoose at any time???! I am dumbfounded! A judge has to decide whether they “approve” of the name you’ve chosen for yourself? Are you kidding me?! This is totally outrageous! And what of the milions of of parents who name their children names that are normally associated with the opposite sex? Girls named Stanley or Michael?… Is this going to be illiegal now? Of all the infirngments on individual liberty, the idea that one cannot legally change their names to whatever the hell they want is beyond what I’d expect in even the most respressive of societies! So, you don’t need court approval to change from a man to a woman, but you DO need court approval to change your name? Seriously?

  29. Why is bigotry like this allowed to be on the bench>

  30. DNA shouldn’t have anything to do with this. These cases were about whether the people could change their name, not whether they could have their new gender recognised. The US, like the UK, has very few laws on what a person can be called, and in particular the idea that a name is specific to one sex doesn’t really exist in law. If a couple wanted to name their son Angela, they might cause some raised eyebrows, but no-one would stop them.

  31. Backwards state, backwards judge.

  32. it is unconstitutional to base your legal findings on a quote from the Bible and from theology. and DNA is proven not to be the sole determinant of sexuality, and sexual form. all kinds of prenatal environmental conditions while in the womb determine gender in general. this man is an ignoramus and a fascist and frankly should be removed from office. along with all the pseudo christian fascist who’ve hijacked the USA like the Taliban hijacked Afghanistan.

  33. so now you have to change your DNA to change your gender, now that’s just bogus! I have both male and female DNA in me and I am currently using only 1 of the 2! Hormones choose which genetic codes get used allowing the switch between the 2 different binaries of gender!

  34. This Bible-based bigot needs to be recalled.

  35. I thought he wanted to change his name, not change his sex on his drivers license…..

    1. Jacqueline 18 Sep 2012, 3:54am

      In a free society you should be able to go by whatever name you wish. There should not even be a reason attached to it other than because I want to! Prince became a symbol. I don’t even understand why anyone needs permission to change their name. The law is supposed to protect people from harming themselves and others, who is being protected here? Also the idea that it could be fraud? Reaally? So what if I name my kid Alicia and he is male? Can you stop me because YOU think its a female name? Where does it end?

  36. You have to like Oklahoma. Where men tend to be knuckle draggers and the women don’t matter. That judge is lacking in any compassion or empathy. Other thatn that & in a very sardonic tone, he is probably a transvestite & scared of discovery. Gender is not what is between your legs.

  37. This judge would make Roland Freisler really proud.

    (sorry about the Godwin’s law but for Judge Graves it was appropriate)

  38. Lindsey Ann Lewis 19 Sep 2012, 6:48am

    A physician who knows nothing of science? Time to yoink the judge’s bench AND that Rep’s license to practice. These idiots should just DIE!

  39. I hope that this judge is reincarnated as a transsexual. :-\

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.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all