A question of sex

[MrsMo]

Ha! I knew that would get your attention!

The question is, if a person has undergone the psychiatric care, hormone therapy, and finally the surgery to transform themselves from one sex to another, what sex are they? Is it what's listed on their birth certificates (ignoring the few states which will allow the transgendered person to go back and have their birth certificates changed) or are they the sex of their current, modified body?

I ask this because a judge in Texas voided the marriage of a transgendered widow (birth certificate says male, current body is female) because Texas law does not recognize same sex marriages. The issue was brought to court by the family of her deceased firefighter husband. Now the widow is barred from receiving his death benefits, which accrue to the deceased firefighter's family instead.

[Apathy]

I'd have to say whatever you currently are not what you once were. Although that plays hell with anyone halfway through. It's a deep seated desire to change sex and isn't a whim. It's not just a... what shall I do today? I know I'll change sex just for fun.

Had a quick look at the history of this particular case. Basically, to my untrained eye, the court decides what sex you are depending on what it wants. The whole thing also looks like a complete tangled mess.

For those interested: http://www.cristanwilliams.com/b/2011/05/25/note-from-nikki-araguzs-mother/ a letter to the court from the wifes mother. It's one-sided but you can expect that.

Meh, depressing state of affairs.

[Spoofed Existence]

My opinion is your sex is what you want it to be. The real issue to consider to answer this question, I reckon, is: why do people distinguish between sexes at all?

Sure, there's the relationship-distinguishing: I wouldn't want to date a guy, no matter how feminine. Why I don't I have no idea, that's just programmed inside of me. Natural selection, really, probably. But the law doesn't distinguish on male and female because of this.
So why does the law distinguish between sexes anyway? To be honest, I'm not sure. I don't see any point in doing that and it may in fact give potential legal issues in the future. What about the first impregnated man? I bet that's not going to stay unnoticed in court, since there must be a few laws that make such a thing extremely confusing.

What is "sex" anyway? You can't say it's the genitals: people can have both male and female genitals. It's not the capability to give birth because some women can't. Basically, there are only two definitions you can give to sex:
1. Whether the genes are XX or XY.
2. Whatever the person chooses it to be.

Point 1 would be problematic. I believe there are people that are neither XX and XY, though I'm not sure. Also, why the hell would the laws change for a person just because one tiny gene is "defected" (as it is said to be in us men)? It changes average behaviour, it changes expected ability to become pregnant, it changes what genitals you usually have. Note that all these sub-sentences have a word that makes the previous sentence completely worthless: "average", "expected", "usually". It's all common-but-not-always. Is it okay to base a law on just the common case?
Even if it is okay to base law on the common case, it is outdated to base laws on anything other than behaviour and actions. In fact, most laws that did exist against genes are not just gone but regretted: "niggers", anyone?

I'd say, let's base it on behaviour. Let people chose. I can't think of a single downside on that. Of course, you have to be motivated enough to get the surgery as well...