One man and one woman?

[Analytical]

Since some have proposed that there be laws and a constitutional amendment that defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman I had a question. Sorry I may be a little strange to some, but with my engineering background I immediately needed to know the definition of a man. Upon looking it up I saw that there was trouble, so many definitions and none that the people that are proposing these laws would like. So, it was clear that the proposed laws would have to define 'man' and 'woman'. (I’ve contacted some pro one man and one woman groups for a definition and they never considered the issue. They know what a man is. There is no need for a definition.) That is not as easy as it first seems. Then who would check to determine at license application time that the criteria was met. What causes me to be unclear are two professional acquaintances. One was Larry who became Laura and had the surgery to make Laura look and to some degree work like a woman. The other was a very bright and nice person of very ambiguous sexuality and gender. Then the are the cases where the chromosomes do not match body structure and all kinds of other sexuality and gender issues which I've read some about. SO, I'm asking those that want to support 'one man and one woman' laws, how are you going to define 'man' and 'woman' so that a law can be applied. Note that this is the only way could you justify saying "No."

[Spartacus]

SO, I'm asking those that want to support 'one man and one woman' laws, how are you going to define 'man' and 'woman' so that a law can be applied."


A man has a penis.

A woman has a vagina.

[chadn737]

A man has a penis.

A woman has a vagina.

Class breaks out in nervous laughter :red:

[RTShatto]

Analytical, do you have any figures to show how many people dont know what gender they are?

Because if its only 1% of the population then I dont think its ok to re-define what a man and a woman are just because 1% of the people are abnormal.

[mrs_innocent]

A man has a penis.

A woman has a vagina.

So then all that matters is the anatomy? A post-operative transsexual is now the opposite gender in your eyes?


Because if its only 1% of the population then I dont think its ok to re-define

What would be an appropriate number?

[mask]

a man has XY chromosomes
a woman has XX chromosomes anything else like klinfelter's syndrome(XXY) is considered neither man nor woman.
a post operative transexual man that now has something like a vagina is still a man
only a disfigured one.

[Symantix]

Nice. That should be the end-all, I would think.

[Analytical]

So far:
Two for anatomy. Two for chromosomes. One for not re-defining but with no definition given, so kind of a non-opinion. And one for letting the people decide for themselves. An one for “Nice, that should end it all” clearly a vote for dropping the whole ‘one man and one woman’ law thing.

So people that know how to identify a man and a woman don’t agree on how to do it. Interesting.

Yes, only a small percentage have XYY or XXY. But many more have rather ambiguous anatomy or personality. So if we have a ‘one man and one woman’ law some people can’t get married since their sexuality isn’t clear to, um, you. If its only 1% that a law is going to discriminate against is that OK?

The only one I see as bullet proof is letting the person decide what his own gender is. But then why have a ‘one man and one woman’ law.

[mask]

what does man mean??
male homo sapien, that's it
personality or anatomy is only an expression of his genetic makeup
and it is the genetic make up that makes him male or female.
expression of these genes could be influnced by a number of factors.
but that doesn't change what he is, an homo sapien with XY chromosomes, in other words a man.
if there was such law it wouldn't discriminate against XXY or XYY , simply coz it doesn't apply to them, the terms man(XY) and woman (XX) are gonna be used.
letting everybody decide what gender they are doesn't make any sense to me,let's make everybody decide what race height age weight he is, it's not like it's a belief , it's something that u are.

[Symantix]

An one for “Nice, that should end it all” clearly a vote for dropping the whole ‘one man and one woman’ law thing.Poor assumption. I was saying "that should end the argument; that's a good way of defining the difference. Put that in the law."


So people that know how to identify a man and a woman don’t agree on how to do it. Interesting. Hmmm...you're agnostic, and yet all of your agnostic peers differ in their viewpoints...interesting. People are always going to disagree, silly. The point is not that everyone disagrees, but rather, that there is a rational solution.


Yes, only a small percentage have XYY or XXY. But many more have rather ambiguous anatomy or personality. So if we have a ‘one man and one woman’ law some people can’t get married since their sexuality isn’t clear to, um, you. If its only 1% that a law is going to discriminate against is that OK? Those who have ambiguous anatomy still fall into the category of having either XY or XX chromosomes. As for those with XYY or XXY, there should obviously be a stipulated concession made for them. You'd have to be really silly to conclude that the purpose of defining is to discriminate. Work towards the solution, not the division, man.


The only one I see as bullet proof is letting the person decide what his own gender is. LOL...bulletproof? This completely eliminates gender, and makes it into some kind of fantasy. It doesn't solidify it. Gender is not a decision, its an attribute of your creation...it's reality, and it's very definable. Let's all decide to be dragons. No wait, I wanna be a horsey. Hey, that guy over there wants to fly. After that, let's all put on straight jackets and have ourselves commited, so that we can join the rest of the bunch who have lost touch with the rational world. Decide want you want, but your will is limited to your nature.

[Analytical]

Poor assumption. I was saying "that should end the argument; that's a good way of defining the difference. Put that in the law."

Hmmm...you're agnostic, and yet all of your agnostic peers differ in their viewpoints...interesting. People are always going to disagree, silly. The point is not that everyone disagrees, but rather, that there is a rational solution.

Those who have ambiguous anatomy still fall into the category of having either XY or XX chromosomes. As for those with XYY or XXY, there should obviously be a stipulated concession made for them. ...

... Gender is not a decision, its an attribute of your creation...it's reality, and it's very definable. ..... Decide want you want, but your will is limited to your nature.
:D
First, Symantix thank you. You are the first I’ve conversed with that has thought about the issue.

You misinterpreted my “The only one I see as bullet proof is letting the person decide what his own gender is.” I do not have the opinion that what a person says his gender is defines his gender. It’s just if you write that into a law it works, i.e. it’s bullet proof, can’t be challenged when applying for a marriage license. But the comment was a bait.

So, it’s chromosomes that define gender. That can technically work if written into a law.

But can you see any issues with application? Privacy maybe. People discovering that they are XXY etc. The cost. Do you want to go there? Most often the purpose of defining whom a person is the first and necessary step to discrimination. (If your 1/16 black your white.) Does this bring people together like you want to do? And this is the rational solution to what problem? :)

[RTShatto]

:D
First, Symantix thank you. You are the first I’ve conversed with that has thought about the issue.*cough* Pay attention, people have been thinking about this issue, otherwise nobody would have posted...


If its only 1% that a law is going to discriminate against is that OK?
Yes it is ok, we are a government for the people, changing law to fit the needs of 1% would be rather unesesary, and it would go against the way this government works. Only if a majority of the status quo (say the 49.51% of the 99% of us) felt compelled to act, then it would be ok to change the law.

[Analytical]

*cough* Pay attention, people have been thinking about this issue, otherwise nobody would have posted...

Yes it is ok, we are a government for the people, changing law to fit the needs of 1% would be rather unesesary, and it would go against the way this government works. Only if a majority of the status quo (say the 49.51% of the 99% of us) felt compelled to act, then it would be ok to change the law.

I may be incorrect but I have asked many people who represent both sides what process they would find acceptable and workable for determining gender. First there was laughter, but no one had ever considered the issues that result with gender determination. However, I’m finding that I may be in over my head with people that do far more thinking than I do.

My issue is not the 1%. But it’s a given that some want to discriminate, mostly addressing the 10%, so what is 1% more. I think most advocates will see it as a bonus. It’s more about what we will all loose. Again the cost, unfortunate discoveries, the invasion that most will feel, and the debasing of the process may not be worth the result. Also note that the chromosome test does not give the perfect result. Laura who was Larry can meet and want to marry Nancy, get tested, pass, and have a wedding with both wearing dresses.

Because of various constitutional reasons, e.g. unreasonable search and seizure, chromosomal gender testing for marriage would require an amendment that resends, in this special case previous amendments. That requires more than a majority.

[chadn737]

Again the cost, unfortunate discoveries, the invasion that most will feel, and the debasing of the process may not be worth the result. Also note that the chromosome test does not give the perfect result. Laura who was Larry can meet and want to marry Nancy, get tested, pass, and have a wedding with both wearing dresses.

Wait just one moment, discrimination by sex is nothing new. How many times have you ever had to fill out a form where it requests your sex? Defining someones sex is very simple, they're either male or female. The small percentage who are both or have had sex changes is exactly that a small percentage. These people will require special attention, but the whole sex issue is one that is fairly clear cut.

[Analytical]

Wait just one moment, discrimination by sex is nothing new. How many times have you ever had to fill out a form where it requests your sex? Defining someones sex is very simple, they're either male or female. The small percentage who are both or have had sex changes is exactly that a small percentage. These people will require special attention, but the whole sex issue is one that is fairly clear cut.

If “Defining someone’s sex is very simple, they're either male or female.” And since appearance is not sufficient due to cross-dressing etc., everyone that wants a marriage license will need testing. And note that the testing is a search in case you may be intending to commit a future crime. And the definition is XY and XX, please tell me who does the legal witnessed test and who pays? Is it worth it?

(Discrimination by typical gender is nothing new. What is new is discrimination because your chromosomes aren’t typical. People are already concerned about discrimination if they have medical issues that can be revealed by testing. Discrimination by apparent gender is nothing new, but discrimination by gender testing will be new.)

[chadn737]

If “Defining someone’s sex is very simple, they're either male or female.” And since appearance is not sufficient due to cross-dressing etc., everyone that wants a marriage license will need testing. And note that the testing is a search in case you may be intending to commit a future crime. And the definition is XY and XX, please tell me who does the legal witnessed test and who pays? Is it worth it?

(Discrimination by typical gender is nothing new. What is new is discrimination because your chromosomes aren’t typical. People are already concerned about discrimination if they have medical issues that can be revealed by testing. Discrimination by apparent gender is nothing new, but discrimination by gender testing will be new.)

1. Everyone has their sex on their birth certificate.

2. Unless you are a transvestite your sex is obvious from birth, if you are a transvestite, that is usually obvious from birth.

If you pay close attention to the 2 points above you will see that no new testing required, its already taken care of. Our gender has already been determined and is available to the government.

[chadn737]

Analytical, are you going to contest this or have I just resolved the issue?

[Slipnish]

1. Everyone has their sex on their birth certificate.

But what about those that choose to change it once they are adults? Are they still what is on the birth certificate? Or do you have to modify that as well?

Don't they segregate people by sex in prison? They usually go by whats on the drivers license, yes? There was a story not to long ago where a man was placed in a woman's prison, as he was a post operative gender changer... :lol:


2. Unless you are a transvestite your sex is obvious from birth, if you are a transvestite, that is usually obvious from birth.

Uhm, I think you mean hermaphrodite. A hermaphrodite exhibits sexual organs of both sexes to some degree.

A transvestite is someone who likes to dress in the opposite genders clothing. They may or may NOT be gay, and it is most assuredly not visible from birth. :)

A transexual is someone who wants sexual reassignment surgery.


If you pay close attention to the 2 points above you will see that no new testing required, its already taken care of. Our gender has already been determined and is available to the government.

I think the issue is not as black and white as you would make it.

So, if John Doe, goes into the hospital, having lived for 2 years, I think it is, as a female, then comes out as Jane Doe, what sex is this person?

Jane looks like a female, has female on her ID, has working female body parts, but genetically is a male, and has male on her birth certificate.

The answer is _____________________?

[chadn737]

But what about those that choose to change it once they are adults? Are they still what is on the birth certificate? Or do you have to modify that as well?

I dont know, Im sure there are laws regarding gender changes, this needs research.

The point I was really trying to get across was that genetic testing would not be the requirement or invasion that Analytical was making it out to be.


Uhm, I think you mean hermaphrodite. A hermaphrodite exhibits sexual organs of both sexes to some degree.

A transvestite is someone who likes to dress in the opposite genders clothing. They may or may NOT be gay, and it is most assuredly not visible from birth.

My mistake, thankyou. :)

[SouthernDem]

Female, wouldnt the birth certificate have to be changed? I know that when your name is changed, reguardless of what is on your birth certificate or Socialist Security card what it has been changed to is law.....