Wednesday, April 3, 2013


Do you remember Thomas Beatie, the transgendered man who was born a woman and who kept his--er, her--er his? female reproductive organs so that she--er, he--er, she?  could give birth to children with his--er, her--oh, forget it: with Beatie's wife who can't have children.  The children's actual father is a sperm donor, just so we're clear, but Beatie claims to be the children's father in that special way that only a woman who thinks she's a man who actually gave birth three times can be.

Well, Beatie wants a divorce, but that troglodyte state known as Arizona won't give Beatie one.  Arizona, the big meanie, says that Beatie is a woman and that they don't recognize same-sex marriages as valid; thus they don't have the power to grant same-sex divorces, even if one of the women considers herself a man and has had some surgery to make herself look more like one--though that surgery stopped short of removing her reproductive organs or her ability to give birth.

Confused yet?  It gets better.  Beatie, trying to make sure that Beatie's name becomes synonymous with the word "chutzpah," says the courts by denying Beatie a divorce are--wait for it--going to mess up Beatie's children:
Beatie, who plans to appeal the ruling in his divorce case, was born a woman and later underwent a double-mastectomy and began testosterone hormone therapy to become a man, but retained female reproductive organs and gave birth to three children. He married his partner Nancy in early 2003 in Honolulu and became pregnant because Nancy was unable to have children. Thomas Beatie conceived with donated sperm. The couple eventually moved to Arizona.
"Imagine what this is doing to my children," Beatie said as he held the hand of his girlfriend of one year. "In time, they are going to look back and see that a court said that's not your daddy. I'm sorry, that's who I am. I am my children's father."

I'm almost speechless.  Almost.

Imagine this: you are a woman who wants to be a man but not to the extent of removing your reproductive organs because you want to have children in an odd arrangement with your romantic female partner and the kind of "father" who pleasured himself and collected the results in a test tube, and you go on to have three such children, and then you think that the biggest possible harm being done to your children is that you are not being granted a divorce by the state of Arizona because they won't play along with you and pretend you're a man?

Unbelievable.  But this is the world we live in, where the unlimited right to define yourself and your relationships apart from any conceivable reality is not seen as harmful to your children; only the refusal of big ol' meanies like the state of Arizona to affirm you in your delusions can possibly do any harm.


eulogos said...

Well, I am glad YOU have the nerve to say it. I am cowed.

Deirdre Mundy said...

"I want the right to have babies!"
All I need to know about liberal politics, I learned from watching Monty Python's Life of Brian. Except the nude scene. I always close my eyes for that.

vera said...

What a yanker. Shows ya. Women manipulators on men's hormones still remain shameless manipulators.

Jerry Waxman said...

There are churches - many of them. They define what marriage means for their practitioners. I am guessing the Catholic church and the Mormon church do not have the exact same definition. In a free country, both definitions would be honored.

Then there is the state, which represents all its people, regardless of what religion they practice. For legal reasons, the state also needs a definition of marriage. In a free country, that definition may not be the same as any one church or any church. Personally, I agree that this wo/man has acted abominably, but it isn't my role to judge him or his family.

For the sake of the kids, I hope someone - either Arizona or some other power - will do the practical thing, and annul the marriage or grant a divorce, and grant custody according to what the children prefer. If s/he is the father, then isn't his wife the mother? Ending this marriage - wouldn't it give the wife an opportunity to seek a more normal relationship?