This story was quite intriguing to me... Here's the full article...
A transsexual whose 17-year marriage to an heiress was nullified when the wife discovered her husband was a woman is not legally a "parent" of her 14-year-old daughter born from donor sperm, the Court of Appeal has ruled.
The female-to-male transsexual, referred to in court as Mr J, is now in law a man under the 2004 Gender Recognition Act and can lawfully marry a woman if he wishes.
But three appeal judges held that, because at the time of his "marriage" to Mrs C in 1977 he was still a woman, he had no parental rights.
The law required that when a woman conceived and gave birth through artificial insemination by donor (AID), the other party to the marriage must be a man in order to qualify as a parent, the judges said.
Mr J was still a woman when the child was conceived by AID in 1991 and, since there was no legal marriage, he could not be "a party" to it.
Mr J, born with gender dysmorphia, underwent hormone treatment and had breasts removed before, at the age of 30, he met and married Mrs C, then aged 20 and from a wealthy background.
He concealed his true gender from her for 17 years, using a home-made part of the anatomy for sex. At a Court of Appeal hearing in 1996, Mr J failed in a bid for a share of the marriage wealth, including a £400,000 home.
At that hearing, Lord Justice Ward described the marriage as a "travesty" and said that many people would find it quite astonishing that in 17 years of life together Mrs C did not realise she was living with a woman.
In today's case, Mr J, now 59, failed in his bid for a declaration of parenthood, despite the fact that he now has a gender recognition certificate and a fresh birth certificate recording his birth as a male.
Lords Justices Thorpe, Wall and Richards said the highly unusual facts of the case were unlikely to recur because of changes in the law.
They ordered that neither party should be identified to protect the daughter and an elder child, also born through AID and now 18.
The judges explained that the issue of when, how and from whom the two children were to learn the truth about their origins remained highly sensitive. The mother, now remarried, has agreed to take advice from a consultant psychiatrist before explaining their background to them.
---
So I am sure that we all agree that Mr. J should have been honest with his bride to be and let her know that he was transgendered. Although, in these situations the truth usually brings about rejection and Mr. J probably felt that the truth would only lead to loneliness. Thus, it is a common among transexuals to lie about their true gender. Well, I guess to transsexuals...true gender is the one locked inside, not their outward physical appearance. Either way, he lied to his bride and then proceeded to procreate with her by artificial insemination. So although, he did not specifically father the children and lying about his gender definately nullifies any stake he had in the marital estate -- Do you think he should be disqualified as a parent to the children that he "fathered," loved, raised, sheltered, etc?
I am not so sure that Mr. J's parental rights should be revoked. If nothing else, the sudden absence of their father will hurt the daughters. Although, so will the news that dad is really a woman. Hmmm... This is a tough one. Mr. J deserves to be a part of his daughter's lives -- and the daughters MUST know something is up with dad, if they don't already know the truth. Personally, I think both daughters are old enough to know and then accept/reject their father on their own accord. Comments? I am curious to know how you think this situation should play out...
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
I feel for Mr. J. He probably didn't tell his wife because he was afraid that she wouldn't accept him, and he loved her so much that he didn't want her to slip away. Granted, I agree the the primary custody of the kids should go wiht the mother. However, I don't think that they should revoke his parental rights because he did nothing to deliberately hurt the family.
But he did hurt them (even if that was undeliberatly).
And now imagine the hurt Mr. J felt -- the rejection, his ENTIRE family being torn away from him, not knowing if he will ever see his daughters again... no one won in this situation :(
I don't think you can say Mr. J's stake in the marital estate is definitely nullified and then in the next paragraph say that his parental rights should not be revoked. To follow the letter of the law as stated in the article, both are absolutes, he can have neither. How can it be okay for him to be granted parental rights based on his years of loving and raising his children, but not okay for him to be granted marital rights based on his years of sharing a life with his wife? I don't see how the two situations can be logically separated. He either was a part of the family or he wasn't. Whether you look at it from the totally legal perspective (in which case he wasn't legally part of the family) or you look at it from the totally human perspective (in which case he was definitely part of the family), the marital and parental status should be decided as one.
Point taken. My difference between the two (marital estate vs. parental rights) was based on the children involved. The marriage will most likely be nullified for Mr. J falsifying his gender. That is pretty much a given. But the children deserve to know their father -- even if he was born a woman.
I also used parental rights vaguely above. By parental rights I mean the right to visit his children, to interact with them as often as he chooses -- not necessarily the right to trump the mother on decisions for their well-being.
I think in that sense, these two ideas can be disconnected and decided differently.
reading the title was enough, im not even going to read the article...gunna vent for a second here...this is the stupidest effin thing in the world!
The article had a purpose, not just fluff. The "father" is being denied any marital and parental rights because of his original gender. It's an interesting topic in an age where transgendered persons are more widely accepted.
i feel for him. But I think it is wrong to lie about something so big. If there is love, than perhaps he could have been accepted
Would you accept you mate if you found out that they were of the same gender?
-I cannot honestly say yes. I would like to think I could see past the gender issue, but I don't know if I could :(
You have to imagine the stress of living with such a secret and thinking (rightly in most situations) that if anyone found out you would be quickly rejected and ridiculed. That is a harsh way to live. Many transsexuals in this place will lie for fear of not being accepted for who they are despite their gender feelings.
I am not condoning lying like this. But we as a society are still very unaccepting of homosexuals, much less the transgendered or transsexual.
Well, no I would not. But hey, the person was Transgener. It's not their fault that they are stuck in the middle. But the lie would be the one that get me. I mean if they really love you, than they will accept you. i know it's hard, but lieing is not right. Specialy with someone you love
It was her fault for not noticing, he should not be punished.
-Kristen
To her defense, she was only 20 when they married. If she had minimal sexual experience at the time it is quite possible that she couldn't tell the difference between a dildo (which can be quite convincing looking and feeling) and a penis. In addition, she may have accepted his "weird" sexual habits -- perhaps he would only have sex in the dark. Or perhaps neither had a very strong libido and the lack of sex was normal to her.
Oh come on, do you really believe that she didn't have a clue? I can see for a few months but 17 years! No way not a chance. She knew something was up, I think if the real truth all came out it would be something more like this: she didn't know at first then later on figured it out but decided to live with it as long as it was a secret. But the secret got out someone else found out and it could have really hurt the heiress if she admitted that she knew about it so she played stupid, so to save some of her reputation.
How in the world could she possibly have no clue? That is astonishing
That is very weird and disturbing. I dont know how the person couldnt have known.
I'm not down with this loss of parental rights. He wa their father, which makes them their father still.
www.worldcantwait.com