Transgendered? Fuck you, your legal marraige don't mean shit.

Depends. If chicken shit had been building up for a long time, I can see fires breaking out in expected places, especially if there was a large amount of feed stored in a single location. Aren't agricultural spaces at risk for dust air implosion, or am I thinking of something else?

Lotta sulfur in them eggs. Mm-hmm.

gaijinguy wrote:

Depends. If chicken shit had been building up for a long time, I can see fires breaking out in expected places, especially if there was a large amount of feed stored in a single location. Aren't agricultural spaces at risk for dust air implosion, or am I thinking of something else?

You're right - silos and storage eg of wheat are at risk of dust explosion. Feed particles are too large to pose a threat, but the finer dust generated from its movimentation and handling can ignite. The friction of the particles moving against each other can be enough to prime an explosion by electrostatic discharge.
However, googling "egg plant fire texas" brings up reports of the incident in question, and it seems that it was the packaging building and offices that caught fire.

...remember to add "Texas" or you'll get results like this:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

For the record, IIRC one of the worst factory fires in the US happened in a plant making chicken nuggets.

I've been following this story on the news and it's my understanding that there was a question as to when the actual surgery took place. If it happened after the wedding, then the marriage would quite possibly not be valid. The widow says her husband knew she was transgendered before they got married.
Personally, I think if the husband named his wife as his beneficary, then she should get the money. Doesn't matter that she used to have a penis.
Politics needs to stay out of the bedroom.

karmyn31 wrote:

I've been following this story on the news and it's my understanding that there was a question as to when the actual surgery took place. If it happened after the wedding, then the marriage would quite possibly not be valid. The widow says her husband knew she was transgendered before they got married.

Why the fuck would it matter when she got the surgery done? Not all transpeople want to have sexual reasignment surgery, and not all of them can afford to get it.

Also, Nikki is intersexual, not transgender. She has complete AIS, and was born with female genitalia in the first place.

Texas marriage laws are a bit weird about that kind of thing. We don't even legally recognize a domestic partnership. Common law marriage is recognized but there are specific rules to it.
I seem to recall another case a few years ago where the husband had a sex change operation and the couple later wanted to divorce. The validity of the marriage after the sex change was called into question. I don't remember what happened, though.

XLT-100852.0 wrote:

Also, Nikki is intersexual, not transgender. She has complete AIS, and was born with female genitalia in the first place.

Oh jesus, doesn't that just make it all the more beautifully fail.

I hadn't heard that she was intersexed. On the news they refered to her as transgender. That makes things different.

This brings an interesting question to mind--how do marriage laws apply to intersex people? If you're both, you're both, and all the stuff about male and female gets a lot more complicated legally.

Simple- when intersex infants are "announced," their genitals are basically judged on the capability of active penetration (ie. being a reproductively sound penis), and that determines what sex gets put on their birth cert. Parents get the option to cut 'em up to look like something less ambiguous.

I imagine, if they don't get chopped up, then they go with whatever they would've cut it up to look like, and that's their legal sex.


So yeah, when people tell you that sex is determined by chromosomes or sex organs or something? Just remember what is mostly looked for is the appearance of the genitals.

Verandering wrote:

(ie. being a reproductively sound penis)

Or just looking like one?

Verandering wrote:

Simple- when intersex infants are "announced," their genitals are basically judged on the capability of active penetration (ie. being a reproductively sound penis), and that determines what sex gets put on their birth cert. Parents get the option to cut 'em up to look like something less ambiguous.

I imagine, if they don't get chopped up, then they go with whatever they would've cut it up to look like, and that's their legal sex.


So yeah, when people tell you that sex is determined by chromosomes or sex organs or something? Just remember what is mostly looked for is the appearance of the genitals.

Hmm...that could get interesting if a person has a reproductively sound penis but also possesses a reproductively sound vagina. Even if the organs are never able to be part of the reproductive process, they would still exist and might well function in a normal sexual way.

Sutremaine wrote:

Verandering wrote:

(ie. being a reproductively sound penis)

Or just looking like one?

Well, if it can get erect and penetrate.
I guess that's not entirely reproductive, lmao. In any case, most intersex kids get deemed female because of the criteria for "reaching" male.

Lady Anne wrote:

Hmm...that could get interesting if a person has a reproductively sound penis but also possesses a reproductively sound vagina. Even if the organs are never able to be part of the reproductive process, they would still exist and might well function in a normal sexual way.

I am not entirely knowledgeable on each and every type of intersexuality (there's a lot, and not all of which end up having any physical impact on the appearance of genitals), so I wouldn't know exactly.

XLT-100852.0 wrote:

Also, Nikki is intersexual, not transgender. She has complete AIS, and was born with female genitalia in the first place.

That's odd - usually AIS are not detected at birth and even if they were, there's no reason to burden what is a 100% female-looking person with the assignment of a male gender and name. The records produced say her previous name was Justin. Now color me confused. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Lady Anne wrote:

Hmm...that could get interesting if a person has a
reproductively sound penis but also possesses a reproductively sound
vagina. Even if the organs are never able to be part of the reproductive
process, they would still exist and might well function in a normal
sexual way.

I'm not sure such people exist... from my memories of Human Genetics lessons, the more ambiguous the genitals, the less likely they are to be functional. So you have a next-to-normal penis with a rudimentary shallow vagina, or a next-to-normal vagina with a rudimentary small penis, or a less rudimentary bit of both.

The Unoriginal wrote:

Lady Anne wrote:

Hmm...that could get interesting if a person has a
reproductively sound penis but also possesses a reproductively sound
vagina. Even if the organs are never able to be part of the reproductive
process, they would still exist and might well function in a normal
sexual way.

I'm not sure such people exist... from my memories of Human Genetics lessons, the more ambiguous the genitals, the less likely they are to be functional. So you have a next-to-normal penis with a rudimentary shallow vagina, or a next-to-normal vagina with a rudimentary small penis, or a less rudimentary bit of both.

You mean Japanese porn lied to me?!

Verandering wrote:

Sutremaine wrote:

Verandering wrote:

(ie. being a reproductively sound penis)

Or just looking like one?

Well, if it can get erect and penetrate.

Aren't there a lot of men who can't get erections? There must be, or Viagra wouldn't be so popular. Yet they're still legally considered men.

I read a bit of a book that shed a little more light about sex assignment of intersex children. I shall quote what it says:

Quote :

The criteria for sex assignment indicates that penile length outweighs all other factors. The male must be able to stand to pee, and should be able to penetrate females. The females must not have a phallus, should be fertile and should be penetrated by males. Based on these criteria, 90 percent of the children are assigned female. According to Laurent, they are given clitorectomy (more politely, clitoroplasty) and vaginal construction or expansion, since some of them do not have vaginas. Ten percent are assigned male, and receive plastic surgery of the penis.

(Source, in case you're curious: Gender Shock by Phyllis Burke)

The books then goes into details of these surgeries, and it's quite disgusting and ridiculous. But well, there you go.

It's best to keep in mind the opinion of whether a penis is too small or a clitoris too large is, for the most part, subjective of the doctor staring at them.