I just noticed on the trannyweb news scroll a bit of news from my home state of Washington. It seems a judge ruled that two female to male transmen can change their gender to male without reproductive surgery. The tribunal cited that the Gender Reassignment Act does not require reproductive surgery. It is being appealed by the attorney general. For me the significance is I was born in Washington state meaning that is where my birth certificate documentation is handled. Should the ruling be upheld this could possibly set a precedent in the state for gender recognition without SRS.

The downside of it all is until the federal government recognizes civil unions or same sex marriage, my marriage would be invalid and my wife would lose my Social Security benefits should I drop dead before her. So even if I could change my gender marker, it would not benefit my family for retirement or death benefits. Therefore I would have to pass on the gender marker change. Considering something like only 5% of transsexuals remain married after transition, most would not be affected by this, but for us 5% it is significant.

But why did I title this "Fascinating but wrong?" Turns out this is not a U.S. Washington story after all. This story comes from Western Australia, the place with kangaroos, crocodiles and koala bears. So here I get all excited that progress is being made just to have my hopes dashed. Nonetheless it highlights the hurdles we still face in our struggle for acceptance.

Hugs,
Marsha

The UK has similar problems still as well Marsha. I can live full time and get gender recognition without surgery but I cannot stay legally married! It's ridiculous.

Nikki

Thank you, Marsha. Looks like I lost the A on a cut and paste changing AUS to US. Corrected.