PDA

View Full Version : Transgender parents rights



thalassa
18 Jul 2016, 12:37
So, I legit know that the US sucks in this regard...but I don't think even we suck this much (some states might):



They were living in a small village in Finland where no one was out. What about moving to somewhere more metropolitan? Unfortunately, even in Helsinki, the largest city, there were few resources and little understanding for trans folk.


Worse still, Finland lags far behind in trans rights compared to many countries deemed “progressive”. While anti-discrimination laws are on the books, discrimination is still a huge problem in everyday life. Finding housing, work and community are big challenges. And if Juliet wants to come out in her home country and change her name and gender marker, she must first be sterilized.


Yes, forced sterilization is mandatory in Finland for trans people. That’s not only a human rights violation, but a serious problem when you want to grow your family, as this couple does. You must also convert your marriage to a civil union, thus losing many of the legal benefits of married couples.


And just in case that isn’t enough to turn your stomach, Juliet would lose her rights as a parent to one-year-old Helmi. As far as we can tell in the research we’ve been doing, she would have to adopt her.


Yes. Adopt her biological child. And not as a second mom, but as a “caregiver.” No defined parental role because Helmi can’t have two moms on the books. How is that even okay in 2016?


blog source (http://www.themavenofmayhem.com/2016/07/were-hosting-trans-woman-and-her-family.html)

WTF.

DragonsFriend
18 Jul 2016, 13:32
Parental rights are (or should be) parental rights. Gender should have no place in marriage or parenting. As a matter of fact no government should be able to say how you should live your life or with whom as long as you are not interfering with the way others live their lives.

faye_cat
18 Jul 2016, 17:53
This is literally sickening. I...don't understand. At all.

Medusa
18 Jul 2016, 21:35
When people are all like yeah, those Nordic countries have bicycle lanes and potted plants, health care and low crime, I call side eye. There's always some effed up human right's thing that just makes you go wtf.

Always.


Al.Ways.

anunitu
18 Jul 2016, 22:26
Humans always get things so screwed up..Lots of old religious bigotry hiding in the wings,just waiting to come out.

Denarius
18 Jul 2016, 23:33
"Caregiver" and "civil union" shouldn't carry any more or less rights than "parent" or "marriage," if they use the terms at all, which is a legitimate criticism. The adoption step is also unnecessary and ridiculous.

The "forced sterilization" thing is a gross misrepresentation of the situation though. Basically, in order to be legally recognized as the opposite sex you must have undergone Sex Reassignment Surgery. Which itself requires a diagnosis of Gender Identity Disorder.

You have to draw a line in the sand somewhere, that's where they chose. I see nothing wrong with that, it's not forcing anyone to do anything. It's just setting a requirement for legal recognition.

As far as I'm concerned, if the state is going to recognize someone's sex then this is a fine standard for doing so in regards to GID. It shouldn't really be in the business of recognizing gender identity, however. I don't think it's a wise use of resources to validate someone's feeling that they are mayonnaise gendered or their sexual identity as an attack helicopter.

Basically, gender identity doesn't and shouldn't matter legally. Those are social issues, not legal ones. Something for society to decide, not the state.

thalassa
19 Jul 2016, 01:52
The "forced sterilization" thing is a gross misrepresentation of the situation though. Basically, in order to be legally recognized as the opposite sex you must have undergone Sex Reassignment Surgery. Which itself requires a diagnosis of Gender Identity Disorder.

You have to draw a line in the sand somewhere, that's where they chose. I see nothing wrong with that, it's not forcing anyone to do anything. It's just setting a requirement for legal recognition.

As far as I'm concerned, if the state is going to recognize someone's sex then this is a fine standard for doing so in regards to GID.

So what organs are we going by here? Biological sex is a bit more complicated than an innie vs. outie (despite how our society views them, they are not primary sex organs, not sex determining organs). How are you checking that? Genetics isn't foolproof either. Sure intersex individuals are rare and it's not the same as being transsexual, but if a system isn't even equipped to handle the former, it sure as shit isn't capable of handling the latter.

Denarius
19 Jul 2016, 02:29
...if a system isn't even equipped to handle the former, it sure as shit isn't capable of handling the latter.

What problems is the system having with them, exactly? People with ambiguous genitalia are rare, and sex chromosome abnormalities rarer still.

We're talking about hundreds of people in a population of millions, and they face problems but not in terms of bureaucracy as far as I know. I couldn't find anything, anyway.

anubisa
19 Jul 2016, 15:27
This is my thought...what the hell does it matter as long as the child is loved and is in a stable and safe environment? I have seen on the news plenty of things about children who are with their real parents who are not being taken cared of. Hell, there are parents that leave their children in the car to go and get high! WTF! Why make a big deal out of transgender parents when they care of and love the children they adopt? Their are hundreds of millions of children out there who need adopting and need loving homes and these a-holes are going to make an issue of people being transgender. Get your priorities straight. I can't stand judgmental people.

Rae'ya
19 Jul 2016, 19:35
While I highly disagree with the parental rights stuff, I have to echo Denarius about the 'forced sterilisation' thing. Gender reassignment, by it's very nature, sterilises you. Taking hormones for the gender that you are (as opposed to the one that you were born), reverses the effects of your natural hormones and renders you sterile. Having surgery to remove the gonads and reproductive organs you were born with so that your hormone therapy is less complicated, renders you sterile. The authors daughter, who is receiving hormone blocking therapy to stop her male puberty, is being sterilised by that very treatment. This isn't a human rights violation... it's part of the process of changing genders. EVERYWHERE DOES THIS. A person can't legally change genders without going through certain hormone therapy and surgical procedures that render you sterile. A transperson can't physically match their true gender without losing their fertility. And most transpeople that I know don't WANT their original fertility (though I know there are cases of FTM's who've gotten pregnant prior to testosterone therapy). Transpeople who also suffer from body dysphoria have terrible issues surrounding things like going to the toilet, having sex and menstruating (or not menstruating). Having the wrong gonads is a big issue. Having them removed is a GOOD thing in most cases. And if a couple wants to use their own ova/sperm for future children, most countries allow them to harvest and store prior to starting hormone therapy (though yes, it's expensive).

Now, where this gets screwy is that it means there's no allowance for third gender people. It means that in Finland, they only recognise binary male-female gender. So what do you do if you're third gender? But Finland isn't the only country that isn't equipped to handle third gender people. Even progressive countries who are changing the laws for transpeople are struggling with accommodating the entire gender spectrum.

The marriage vs civil union thing... that goes anywhere that gay marriage isn't legal. When you've legally changed genders, your pre-existing marriage becomes a same-sex union. So... yes it's stupid, and yes it should be changed, but it's not actually that unusual in the world at this point in time.

Here in South Australia, we have some old laws that they've never bothered to change, which make a few things about gender reassignment tricky. Like Finland, you have to have physically transitioned in order to be legally recognised as the opposite gender, which is fine, because after that you can get married, have kids etc etc and no one bats an eyelash. But you can't have a hysterectomy without a 'medical reason', so FTMs have to keep their uterus and ovaries until their doctor finds a way around that silliness. As a couple, you need to be married and one of you needs to be medically infertile to be able to get fertility assistance... ie as a couple with one trans person, you can't have kids until you are married (and you can't get married until you are all the way down the transition process, which takes years and lots of money). This is crazy because a single woman is allowed to get fertility treatment, but that same woman wouldn't be if she was in a defacto relationship with a transman. South Australia isn't anti-trans... it's just that in the process of trying to become pro-trans, it skipped a couple of the fine-print laws, which makes the whole process trickier than it seems.

Personally, I don't think this is about Finland. I don't even think this is about transpeople. This is about same sex couples. Finland obviously allows gender transition and protects transpeople from discrimination... this is a GOOD thing, because there are countries that don't do either. What it DOESN'T do is allow same sex marriage, or same-sex parenting. And the reality is that when you go through a gender transition and keep your original spouse, you become a same-sex couple. On the flip side of that, when you are in the process of transitioning and you have an opposite gender spouse, you are considered a same-sex couple until the transition is complete. Anywhere you can't be legally married or parent as a same sex couple is going to cause these exact same issues.

So this isn't about human rights violations for transpeople. It's about the laws not allowing same sex marriage or same-sex parenting.

It's about legalising a) same sex marriage and b) same sex parenting (currently, most countries who allow same-sex adoption allow one parent and one caregiver, not two parents). When we do that, we not only make life easier and more equitable for people in same-sex relationships, but we make it easier and more equitable for transpeople and for third gender people (because when the rights are the same no matter whether you're male or female, it then becomes easier to be both or somewhere in the middle... not perfect, but easier).

Denarius
19 Jul 2016, 20:44
Even progressive countries who are changing the laws for transpeople are struggling with accommodating the entire gender spectrum.

What purpose is there in legally recognizing gender identity? As far as I am concerned that is a social issue and not a federal issue.

DanieMarie
22 Jul 2016, 02:57
Because by legally recognizing gender identity, the country recognizes that those are groups of people whose rights also need to be protected.

Denarius
22 Jul 2016, 03:07
They are already recognized by the state as people whose rights need to be protected, that's what citizenship is.

DanieMarie
22 Jul 2016, 03:59
But clearly it's not working. By not recognizing trans people, we're basically forcing them into their birth genders. In order to be able to switch genders on your passport or reserve the right to use the "other" bathroom or be listed on a birth certificate as a child's mother instead of his/her father, you have to recognize that trans people exist as a group.

Denarius
22 Jul 2016, 04:25
All things covered under identifying them based on sex. The Finnish passport is male and female, not masculine and feminine. Bathrooms are a matter of anatomic function, thus would (or should) be sex based.

I don't know about birth certificates in Finland, but I would assume it would be sex based. I don't remember ever seeing a "demi-boy" or "aerogender" box to tick.

thalassa
22 Jul 2016, 06:50
I had written an entire post addressing 2 points several days ago, I posted it...and its not here. Which is weird.


A person can't legally change genders without going through certain hormone therapy and surgical procedures that render you sterile.


But basically, this idea^ is not universally true.

I don't have time for all the links, but basically, there are a number of states and countries where you don't have to be on hormone therapy or have had reassignment surgery to change your legal gender. There are a number of reasons for this--not everyone is a good candidate for either, not all persons can afford it, and not all persons want to go through either process for a variety of reasons, including, some persons still want biological children.


Additionally, there are a number of legal rights as well as private and public services that are gender-based.


All things covered under identifying them based on sex. The Finnish passport is male and female, not masculine and feminine. Bathrooms are a matter of anatomic function, thus would (or should) be sex based.


And this is where you miss the boat completely.

No one looks in your pants when they check ID. They check what you look like and whether that matches the information on your ID and treat you on the basis of how that does or does not match their preconceived notions.

DanieMarie
22 Jul 2016, 09:31
I had written an entire post addressing 2 points several days ago, I posted it...and its not here. Which is weird.



But basically, this idea^ is not universally true.

I don't have time for all the links, but basically, there are a number of states and countries where you don't have to be on hormone therapy or have had reassignment surgery to change your legal gender. There are a number of reasons for this--not everyone is a good candidate for either, not all persons can afford it, and not all persons want to go through either process for a variety of reasons, including, some persons still want biological children.


Additionally, there are a number of legal rights as well as private and public services that are gender-based.



And this is where you miss the boat completely.

No one looks in your pants when they check ID. They check what you look like and whether that matches the information on your ID and treat you on the basis of how that does or does not match their preconceived notions.

In Germany, you can declare gender neutral on your passport or ID if you want to. I'm not sure about your identified sex vs your biological sex, though. Still, to get that far, you have to recognize that not everyone fits into the binary male and female genders that they were born with and that people don't may need some government policies that protect their rights.

DragonsFriend
22 Jul 2016, 10:23
Rights are never provided by government. Governments provide privileges and government can remove those privileges because they are the source. Rights are provided by nature and there are example of most natural rights throughout nature. If you have a right to change gender (toads do it naturally) then government has no place accept to protect those rights. They rarely do a good job of it. That means that you must protect your rights and you are given the means to do so. If you choose not to protect your rights then they are forfeit until you are willing to fight to get them back.
It is my considered opinion that governments are a necessary evil that must be controlled on tight reigns or they fail to be government and become harmful to the governed.

Medusa
22 Jul 2016, 10:36
All things covered under identifying them based on sex. The Finnish passport is male and female, not masculine and feminine. Bathrooms are a matter of anatomic function, thus would (or should) be sex based.

I don't know about birth certificates in Finland, but I would assume it would be sex based. I don't remember ever seeing a "demi-boy" or "aerogender" box to tick.
Anatomic function? First, I'm going to give you the reacher stick once again. Second, the toilet bowls are the same. Yeah you get a stand up one also but not only. Because anatomically we all peepee and poo poo the same way. We both 'gasp' also have urethra and rectum. Who would have thunk it.

thalassa
22 Jul 2016, 18:10
The idea of "natural rights" is about as laughable as the commercial for the square potty...except that the square potty commercial is legitimately funny. The idea of "natural rights" is nothing but Enlightenment Era romanticism. What we call "rights" are nothing but societally conferred and government codified agreements to those actions that individuals ought to be engaged in with minimal interference. And that changes over time.