Transgender woman correctly buried as man?

[Vashta Nerada]

Then why hasn't the law stepped in?

Maybe because there is no law against misgendering dead people in their obituaries?

Well there's your answer then. Looks like the family can call him and him and legally bury him as a man.

The death certificate is a legal document, and therefore the fact that the document states the person in the ground in a man, that is more than enough to seal the deal.

Not really. It would depend on what conditions the death certificate was drafted.

And what would those be then?

And the family's opinion matters because it was their relative they had to bury, not your's.

The family has the right to determine her gender because it's her family.

Circular logic at its finest.

I don't care. End of the day, it says "Geoffrey Charles Gable" on the gravestone. Unless you want to make a trip to Boise, Idaho and vandalize a gravestone, I suggest you either get over it or beg for mercy when you get caught.

[Liriena]

No.

Look, I don't care if you disagree with us on transgender issues, but you could at least have the decency to be polite and refer to people by their preferred pronouns. There's many transgender people on NS, and while it might not be a big deal to you, their gender identity is a big deal to them, and the world is already a pretty frightening place for most transgender people without some anonymous pedant smugly refusing them even the basic courtesy of acknowleding the pronouns they identify with.

Words can hurt, and quite deeply at that.

Pedophiles prefer to have sex with kids. Rapists prefer to have non-consensual sex. The KKK prefers a white America. yes, I know. Improper comparisons, but good enough for the point I'm about to make.

Doubtful. All of those negatively affect other people's lives in some way.

Just because someone prefers something to go a certain way, doesn't mean people have to do it.

That has got to be the most cynical excuse for impoliteness I've ever seen expressed in the English language.

It's a frightening world for black people too. But most of us don't whine about it until we start getting shot.

I know, and it's something that must be addressed on its own terms.
It also has nothing to do with your incorrect use of pronouns for transgender people, nor does it negate the struggles of transgender people.

The world is hard enough without some equally smug person making demands from the safety of their bedroom.

So, what you are saying is that my advocacy, through the internet, in the comfort of my bedroom, for a better treatment of transgender people makes the world a harder place?

I'd love to see you explain that.

And on top of that you are calling me smug?

And if words can hurt, then people need to grow a backbone and get over it. There are real issues going on in the world right now. Jumping off a bridge because someone won't accept you is rather pitiful.

And for this, I'm putting you on my ignore list.

I can tolerate transphobia, but I will never tolerate calling the victims of emotional abuse "pitiful" and blaming them for their suffering, rather than calling the bullies out on their cruelty.

Do you realize what you just did? You just blamed people who have been verbally bullied for their suffering, and the suicides to which said suffering has driven many of them to, just to excuse your reluctance to refer to transgender people by their preferred pronouns? And to top it off you went on to cynically use the struggles of black people as well? And compared transgender people to rapists, pedophiles and the KKK?

That's disgustingly selfish, irresponsible and cynical. You should be ashamed of yourself for trying to minimize the suffering of countless innocent people and using equally serious issues to justify it.

I never claimed the moral high ground.

If that's the case, mind explaining your moral stance on this matter? I'm intrigued.

I'm happy the existence of transgender people doesn't make you pee in your pants, but that has nothing to do with what I said.

With that said... The person in question didn't "want" to be a woman. She identified as a woman. If you're going to spew transphobic nonsense, at least use accurate vocabulary... and the correct pronouns.

Last I checked, a phobia is an irrational fear of something or someone.

Before you continue your appeal to etymology, try reading the definition of transphobia.

It's a silly word for a silly issue that in the wide scope of things is ridiculous.

If it's so silly, why are you discussing the issue? Unless, that is, you are only calling it silly to delegitimize it through ridicule and, thus, somehow strengthen your position.

I've used the proper pronouns, and whether or not you like it I don't care.

Except you haven't.

And, honestly? I don't care if you don't care. You already expressed the same disregard for the dignity of others in past encounters with me, so you can't shock me in that regard. Whether you care or not won't stop me from calling you out on it.

There's a world of people who think your own use of the vocabulary is barbaric, and would rather speak with other like-mind people such as themselves.

Of course. The world is full of impolite people with loud, yet ultimately not deeply thought opinions.

Nice chatting with you, Vashta Nerada.

Good night.

[Liriena]

Say, what credentials did those three groups have that made them fit to determine the legitimacy of this woman's gender identity?

And while we are at it, what credentials do you have?

Let's see, we have the family that raised the man, the church that provided the community for the man, and the funeral home that buries hundreds of people a year, making the latter quite qualified to determine the gender at death.

So, not one of them had any education in gender identity issues, other than their social-cultural norms?

Thanks for the confirmation.

Likewise, I have no credentials. I have brain and common sense.

Common sense is the least common of senses. Or, to put it on clearer terms, common sense is usually a code word for "I want my unproven opinion to be regarded as a universally accepted self-evident truth, and thus not bound by the burden of proof".

The guy was born a man.

No. She was assigned a male gender at birth, but developed a female gender identity as time went by.

No amount of alteration will change that.

Indeed, physical alteration can't change gender identity. After all, gender identity is a social-cultural and psychological phenomenon... which doesn't help your case at all.

Until a transgender "woman" is able to have kids naturally, I refuse to accept them as a woman.

Well, you just took womanhood away from an awful lot of infertile cisgender women. Congratulations.

And I have every legal right to do so.

Again with this pointless statements... Yes, you have every legal right to spew transphobic nonsense. In fact, there's organizations out there who do it on a daily basis, and far more eloquently than you.

We, on the other hand, have every legalright to call you out on your nonsense.

[Liriena]

Maybe because there is no law against misgendering dead people in their obituaries?

Well there's your answer then. Looks like the family can call him and him and legally bury him as a man.

Yes... We've repeatedly established this.

That doesn't exempt their decision from criticism, though.

Not really. It would depend on what conditions the death certificate was drafted.

And what would those be then?

The conditions being who had the certificate drafted, who drafted it, and what their knowledge and opinions were on the woman's gender identity, and whether there was any legislation preventing them from misgendering her in the certificate.

The family has the right to determine her gender because it's her family.

Circular logic at its finest.

I don't care.

Yes, you've gone out of your way to make that clear, and you're not the first poster in this thread to repeatedly assert that they don't care, that this topic is unimportant, only to keep posting about it.

What's your excuse?

End of the day, it says "Geoffrey Charles Gable" on the gravestone. Unless you want to make a trip to Boise, Idaho and vandalize a gravestone, I suggest you either get over it or beg for mercy when you get caught.

I'll pick none of the above, thank you. I have the legal right to protest, so I'm going to do just that.

Sorry.

[Grenartia]

I've already explained to you why you have to prove yourself correct. But you're just going to be intellectually dishonest and ignore what I say when you can't figure out anyway to address it, aren't you?

1. And I already told you that if you want something proven, tell me what it is. 2. Saying I'm not providing the source to a phantom statement of yours is asinine, and 3. saying I'm being "intellectually dishonest" because I won't prove a statement I made to one of your many 4. protracted transgender babble is equally asinine.

Nope. She was a woman, and is entitled to be referred to by the proper pronouns, those pronouns being she/her/hers. Anything else is blatantly disrespectful, transphobic, trolling, and generally the calling card of people with no empathy or sense of basic human decency.

5. Too bad. I referred to him as the family and the death certificate have stated. Like I said before, take it up with the family if you've got an issue with the legal aspects of the problem as you see it. It would be dishonest to go against the wishes of the family just to honor a dead man.

1. I already told you what I want you to source.

2. Its not a statement of mine I'm demanding a source for, its a statement of yours. A statement that no less than 4 people have specifically demanded you source. And you've ignored all of them.

3. So, I'm being asinine, but its totally not asinine to refuse to source a claim that over 4 people demanded you to source? Seems totally legit.

4. Please. Define "protracted transgender babble".

5. Her family doesn't own her, and doesn't own her dignity. Its more dishonest to go against the wishes of the deceased than to give in to the bullshit of the deceased's family.

[Vashta Nerada]

1. And I already told you that if you want something proven, tell me what it is. 2. Saying I'm not providing the source to a phantom statement of yours is asinine, and 3. saying I'm being "intellectually dishonest" because I won't prove a statement I made to one of your many 4. protracted transgender babble is equally asinine.


5. Too bad. I referred to him as the family and the death certificate have stated. Like I said before, take it up with the family if you've got an issue with the legal aspects of the problem as you see it. It would be dishonest to go against the wishes of the family just to honor a dead man.

1. I already told you what I want you to source.

2. Its not a statement of mine I'm demanding a source for, its a statement of yours. A statement that no less than 4 people have specifically demanded you source. And you've ignored all of them.

3. So, I'm being asinine, but its totally not asinine to refuse to source a claim that over 4 people demanded you to source? Seems totally legit.

4. Please. Define "protracted transgender babble".

5. Her family doesn't own her, and doesn't own her dignity. Its more dishonest to go against the wishes of the deceased than to give in to the bullshit of the deceased's family.

1. You haven't. In the last four posts you've made, your statements say nothing of what it is you want, only that you want sources for things you won't tell me I've said. I've said I lot of things, but yet you won't tell me exactly what I said that needs sourcing.

2. And yet not one of those four people have told me what of the several dozen posts I made needs a sources. Maybe if you and your three pals combine all that energy you have demanding sources, you can give me a post I made and that I can respond to. I can't read minds and I most certainly won't go through the now 29 pages of heated complaints to source one or two statements I made because your too lazy to give me the post yourself.

3. Read the above. If you can't give me the post you want the source too, then yes, you are being asinine.

4. The pedantic complaints about transgender woes and persecution over a series of pages with little to no solution to the problem. You say that what the family did was wrong, and you yet to give any of us any solution or alternative to the problem. If all you can do is complain without providing a way to correct the issue, why even bring up the subject to begin with?

5. Shame. If they didn't own him, then the state wouldn't have given the family the body to begin with. Yet, the family got custody of the body and buried their son as they saw fit. We don't know what the wishes of the man were, and therefore, you cannot say for a fact that the family did something that went against his wishes. For all we know, maybe he wanted to be a woman in life and a man in death. We can't say because we didn't know him. Thus far, we only have the hearsay of "friends of friends" who knew the family through friends at the funeral. I don't like third or forth-hand information.

[Grenartia]

Hmm, I must have missed that part of the thread, but it is an intruiging legal question. If someone legally changes their gender, does a deathcertificate that says something else have any legal standing ?
If this has been answered already I shall stop being lazy and actually read the thread

Well clearly that wasn't the case because the family, the church, and the funeral home all bury the transgender individual as a man. So that's three groups that have all confirmed the person as a man. Therefore I refer to him as such using male pronouns.

And none of those three are ever correct when they go directly against the individual in question's identity. To claim otherwise is utterly asinine.

Didn't the person legally change their gender though?

Legally yes. But the fact that you have three groups bury him as a man and the fact that the courts haven't stepped in despite the media circus around the affair confirms it.

Again, since when does a person's family, the family's chosen church, and the chosen funeral home get to overrule the person in queston's identity?

Also, the government being transphobic. What else is new?

Then why hasn't the law stepped in?

Maybe because there is no law against misgendering dead people in their obituaries?

The death certificate is a legal document, and therefore the fact that the document states the person in the ground in a man, that is more than enough to seal the deal.

Not really. It would depend on what conditions the death certificate was drafted.

And the family's opinion matters because it was their relative they had to bury, not your's.

The family has the right to determine her gender because it's her family.

Circular logic at its finest.

Circular logic works because circular logic works because circular logic works because circular logic works...

No.

Look, I don't care if you disagree with us on transgender issues, but you could at least have the decency to be polite and refer to people by their preferred pronouns. There's many transgender people on NS, and while it might not be a big deal to you, their gender identity is a big deal to them, and the world is already a pretty frightening place for most transgender people without some anonymous pedant smugly refusing them even the basic courtesy of acknowleding the pronouns they identify with.

Words can hurt, and quite deeply at that.

Pedophiles prefer to have sex with kids. Rapists prefer to have non-consensual sex. The KKK prefers a white America. yes, I know. Improper comparisons, but good enough for the point I'm about to make. Just because someone prefers something to go a certain way, doesn't mean people have to do it. 1. It's a frightening world for black people too. 2. But most of us don't whine about it until we start getting shot. 3. The world is hard enough without some equally smug person making demands from the safety of their bedroom. 4. And if words can hurt, then people need to grow a backbone and get over it. 5. There are real issues going on in the world right now. 6. Jumping off a bridge because someone won't accept you is rather pitiful.

"Misguided sense of moral superiority."

Heh, good joke, coming from you.

That being said... It was a figure of speech.

I never claimed the moral high ground. You on the other hand have done that from the beginning.

I'm happy the existence of transgender people doesn't make you pee in your pants, but that has nothing to do with what I said.

With that said... The person in question didn't "want" to be a woman. She identified as a woman. If you're going to spew transphobic nonsense, at least use accurate vocabulary... and the correct pronouns.

7. Last I checked, a phobia is an irrational fear of something or someone. 8. You've called me transphobic, and 9. I've stated that's a bunch of nonsense. 10. It's a silly word for a silly issue that in the wide scope of things is ridiculous. 11. I've used the proper pronouns, and whether or not you like it 12. I don't care. 13. There's a world of people who think your own use of the vocabulary is barbaric, and would rather speak with other like-mind people such as themselves.

Ironic doesn't even begin to describe that sentence.

Shame.

Please... don't. The burden of proof is on you, and that rant of yours won't change that.

See, I do consider myself a mature young adult... and as such I know when the burden of proof is on me, and by your own admission, it's not. You are the one making claims that need corroboration. You can't bait me by attacking me and insulting my intelligence.

14. And I have yet to see a post stating what I'm suppose to be proving. I already gave proof on the lack of nations accepting homosexuality, and linked to the number of transsexuals in the United States. But I receive these demands for additional sources to claims I've made that no one has yet to bring up. If you want a source, you have to tell me what I said that needs fact-checking. Until you give me a statement I've made, I won't be providing any sources.

No. You should make the effort to prove yourself right in the first place.

I already made the effort. Any additional effort either needs to be done on your side, or you give me a claim I've made that requires a source. If you can provide it, don't demand it. So get over it.

1. Not nearly as much as it is for trans people. Especially black transwomen.

2. We're ALWAYS getting much worse than shot. We're being slaughtered and raped and tortured, and 95% of the time somebody fucking cares enough to mention "some dumb tranny got killed", we're referred to improperly. We stand up for our equality, we get beaten, raped, and killed. We do nothing, we get beaten, raped, and killed. We defend ourselves, and we get sent to prison for doing so. All the while suffering some of the worst insults in all the English language. Too many of us can't even use a public bathroom without risking being beaten/raped/killed.

3. For many of us our bedrooms are the safest fucking place we have, because everywhere else, see above. Fuck your entitled bullshit.

4. Its not just words, its actions, too. Actions that the words "justify" (as if the actions can actually be justified).

5. And trans equality is one of them. Human rights is ALWAYS a valid issue. Especially when it comes to a right as basic as the freedom of expression.

6. Try stepping in our place for 6 months, then come back to us. I dare you, I double dare you. I doubt you'd have lasted a week in CeCe McDonald's place.

7. The suffix "-phobia" also means an extreme aversion to (ex: Hydrophobic molecules, so named because they show an aversion to water, not because they are afraid of water). lrn2multipledefinitions.

8. A label that totally fits.

9. Really? Is it? I haven't seen you post a damned thing that wasn't transphobic on some level (or at least wasn't incredibly ignorant).

10. Then surely you'd have no problem fulfilling my challenge? Also, why are you so fucking involved in this discussion if, as you claim, its of no importance? Why not just go off to other threads about issues you feel actually matter?

11. Except you haven't.

12. So you're admitting you have no empathy?

13. And they're objectively wrong.

14. Go back a few pages. You'll see several. But you'll probably ignore them like you did the first time.

Say, what credentials did those three groups have that made them fit to determine the legitimacy of this woman's gender identity?

And while we are at it, what credentials do you have?

Let's see, 1. we have the family that raised the man, 2. the church that provided the community for the man, and 3. the funeral home that buries hundreds of people a year, making the latter quite qualified to determine the gender at death. 4. Likewise, I have no credentials. 5. I have brain and common sense. 6. The guy was born a man. No amount of alteration will change that. 7. Until a transgender "woman" is able to have kids naturally, 8. I refuse to accept them as a woman, and I have every legal right to do so.

1. *Woman. Also, what right do they have to strip the woman of her dignity post-mortem? They don't fucking own her, even if they are her blood relations.

2. Again, what right does that community have to strip her of her dignity after her death? They have even less claim to own her than her family does.

3. And the funeral home has even less standing than the church. Also, sex isn't gender. Sex is biological. Gender is psychological.

4. Good, so we all agree on that point.

5. Then why not start using them, sweetie?

6. Nobody is born "a man". She was raised as a boy, realized she preferred being a woman, and then lived her life as one. And how she identified is all that fucking matters here. Not what other people say about her, but how she lived and identified.

7. Implying reproduction is the 'end-all, be-all' of gender identity.

8. Yes, and Flat-Earthers have every right to deny facts and basic logic. You two should probably enjoy each others' company, since you're in the same boat.

Maybe because there is no law against misgendering dead people in their obituaries?

Well there's your answer then. Looks like the family can call him and him and legally bury him as a man.

Just because they can, doesn't mean they should. And they arguably shouldn't be able to.

1. I already told you what I want you to source.

2. Its not a statement of mine I'm demanding a source for, its a statement of yours. A statement that no less than 4 people have specifically demanded you source. And you've ignored all of them.

3. So, I'm being asinine, but its totally not asinine to refuse to source a claim that over 4 people demanded you to source? Seems totally legit.

4. Please. Define "protracted transgender babble".

5. Her family doesn't own her, and doesn't own her dignity. Its more dishonest to go against the wishes of the deceased than to give in to the bullshit of the deceased's family.

1. You haven't. In the last four posts you've made, your statements say nothing of what it is you want, only that you want sources for things you won't tell me I've said. I've said I lot of things, but yet you won't tell me exactly what I said that needs sourcing.

2. And yet not one of those four people have told me what of the several dozen posts I made needs a sources. Maybe if you and your three pals combine all that energy you have demanding sources, you can give me a post I made and that I can respond to. I can't read minds and I most certainly won't go through the now 29 pages of heated complaints to source one or two statements I made because your too lazy to give me the post yourself.

3. Read the above. If you can't give me the post you want the source too, then yes, you are being asinine.

4. The pedantic complaints about transgender woes and persecution over a series of pages with little to no solution to the problem. You say that what the family did was wrong, and you yet to give any of us any solution or alternative to the problem. If all you can do is complain without providing a way to correct the issue, why even bring up the subject to begin with?

5. Shame. If they didn't own him, then the state wouldn't have given the family the body to begin with. Yet, the family got custody of the body and buried their son as they saw fit. We don't know what the wishes of the man were, and therefore, you cannot say for a fact that the family did something that went against his wishes. For all we know, maybe he wanted to be a woman in life and a man in death. We can't say because we didn't know him. Thus far, we only have the hearsay of "friends of friends" who knew the family through friends at the funeral. I don't like third or forth-hand information.

1. Then you need to go back farther in the thread. Because its all there.

2. I've fucking seen them demand sources. Also, you don't even have to go back 29 pages.

3. I find it pretty asinine that you refuse to go back 5 pages or so to find what people are asking you to source, especially given that you ignored the demands when they were first posted, in the first place. Why should I go back 5 pages to quote demands you've already seen and refused to fulfill, when I have no assurances that you'll deliver this time?

4. Except, we're giving solutions, but you're refusing to listen. And isn't the solution in this case fucking obvious, anyhow?

5. Except, you know, if you're going to live as a woman in life, its axiomatic that you want to be remembered as one in death.

[Transhuman Proteus]

Say, what credentials did those three groups have that made them fit to determine the legitimacy of this woman's gender identity?

And while we are at it, what credentials do you have?

Let's see, we have the family that raised the man, the church that provided the community for the man, and the funeral home that buries hundreds of people a year, making the latter quite qualified to determine the gender at death.

All loving people who truly wished to honour someone they cared about who had died... by insulting their memory and rewriting their existence, and how they had been living. Champs. Me? Someone I care about who died? I'd want to make sure they went into the ground in a way they'd be happy with, if they were capable of knowing. Otherwise I'd be showing myself as both selfish, and a rather poor example of a decent human being.

But since you're so willing to write off a persons ingrained psychology, I trust you'd be equally ok with the people ignoring a persons religious conversion. Or a cultural one. Or a.... you know, the things someone chooses. Bury a guy who converted from Islam to Christianity as a Muslim. You're Atheists, but your son in late stages of dementia is a Catholic? Well, no need to call anyone to perform last rites, and we'll not have a religious funeral. Or vice versa - one's Atheist son didn't want anything religious involved, but we'll ignore their wishes and not respect them and ensure they get buried in a full Catholic funeral.

Yeah, good people.

[The Rich Port]

"Oh, so this guy wanted to be a different person than how he was born? Well, FUCK THAT. We don't really care about what he thought or felt; we just want to make ourselves feel better by pretending we give a shit by treating his corpse better than we treated him when he had desires!"

[Indira]

Utterly disgraceful. I hope whoever is responsible is proud that they cheapened the last celebration of a woman's life just to demonstrate that they're bigoted morons.

Basically this^^

[Purpelia]

Well from my perspective its simple really. The corpse does not care. Not any more. Corpses don't have feelings. So the ceremony of burial is something that obviously exists solely for the benefit of the people still alive. Thus what ever they want to do that makes them feel better about their loss is perfectly fine by me.

[Simply Tyrone]

Well from my perspective its simple really. The corpse does not care. Not any more. Corpses don't have feelings. So the ceremony of burial is something that obviously exists solely for the benefit of the people still alive. Thus what ever they want to do that makes them feel better about their loss is perfectly fine by me.

I wish more people look you understand. Sadly, people still think that dead cells still need to be dressed as women.

Let's see, we have the family that raised the man, the church that provided the community for the man, and the funeral home that buries hundreds of people a year, making the latter quite qualified to determine the gender at death.

All loving people who truly wished to honour someone they cared about who had died... by insulting their memory and rewriting their existence, and how they had been living. Champs. Me? Someone I care about who died? I'd want to make sure they went into the ground in a way they'd be happy with, if they were capable of knowing. Otherwise I'd be showing myself as both selfish, and a rather poor example of a decent human being.

But since you're so willing to write off a persons ingrained psychology, I trust you'd be equally ok with the people ignoring a persons religious conversion. Or a cultural one. Or a.... you know, the things someone chooses. Bury a guy who converted from Islam to Christianity as a Muslim. You're Atheists, but your son in late stages of dementia is a Catholic? Well, no need to call anyone to perform last rites, and we'll not have a religious funeral. Or vice versa - one's Atheist son didn't want anything religious involved, but we'll ignore their wishes and not respect them and ensure they get buried in a full Catholic funeral.

Yeah, good people.

Not ingrained psychology; simply ingrained idiocy. Your nucleotides, nucleic acids, and other chromatic productions dictate your sex.

[Alyakia]

Well from my perspective its simple really. The corpse does not care. Not any more. Corpses don't have feelings. So the ceremony of burial is something that obviously exists solely for the benefit of the people still alive. Thus what ever they want to do that makes them feel better about their loss is perfectly fine by me.

"please scatter my ashes on my child's grave it is very important to me"

*scatters ashes over landfill*

[Simply Tyrone]

Well from my perspective its simple really. The corpse does not care. Not any more. Corpses don't have feelings. So the ceremony of burial is something that obviously exists solely for the benefit of the people still alive. Thus what ever they want to do that makes them feel better about their loss is perfectly fine by me.

"please scatter my ashes on my child's grave it is very important to me"

*scatters ashes over landfill*

Hey, it helps with decomposition!

[Vassenor]

Not ingrained psychology; simply ingrained idiocy. Your nucleotides, nucleic acids, and other chromatic productions dictate your sex.

You still haven't answered my question about where intersex individuals fall on your arbitrary demarcation.

[Simply Tyrone]

Not ingrained psychology; simply ingrained idiocy. Your nucleotides, nucleic acids, and other chromatic productions dictate your sex.

You still haven't answered my question about where intersex individuals fall on your arbitrary demarcation.

If they were born like that; no. If they got procedures to be like that, yes.

[Servica]

Wow! I can't believe that the Church, of all institutions, denied someone the right to choose which set of gender roles she wanted to adhere to, differentiated between what goes into the obituary of a "man," and that of a "woman," and, worst of all, condemns boys who wear panties! The Church never, ever lags behind the rest of society in terms of social progressivism...

This may not be what the thread was about, but all reading the OP did for me was give me this overwhelming, and now very familiar, feeling of "FUCK THE CHURCH!"

Amen.

[Vassenor]

You still haven't answered my question about where intersex individuals fall on your arbitrary demarcation.

If they were born like that; no. If they got procedures to be like that, yes.

Intersex, in humans and other animals, is a variation in sex characteristics including chromosomes, gonads, or genitals that do not allow an individual to be distinctly identified as male or female. Such variation may involve genital ambiguity, and combinations of chromosomal genotype and sexual phenotype other than XY-male and XX-female.[1][2]

Intersex infants and children, such as those with ambiguous outer genitalia, may be surgically and/or hormonally altered to fit into a perceived more socially acceptable sex category. However, this is considered controversial, with no firm evidence of good outcomes.[3] Such treatments may involve sterilization. Adults, including elite women athletes, have also been subjects of such treatment. Increasingly these issues are recognized as human rights abuses, with statements from UN agencies,[4][5] a national parliament,[6] and ethics institutions.[7] Intersex organizations have also issued joint statements over several years as part of an International Intersex Forum.

[Simply Tyrone]

If they were born like that; no. If they got procedures to be like that, yes.

Intersex, in humans and other animals, is a variation in sex characteristics including chromosomes, gonads, or genitals that do not allow an individual to be distinctly identified as male or female. Such variation may involve genital ambiguity, and combinations of chromosomal genotype and sexual phenotype other than XY-male and XX-female.[1][2]

Intersex infants and children, such as those with ambiguous outer genitalia, may be surgically and/or hormonally altered to fit into a perceived more socially acceptable sex category. However, this is considered controversial, with no firm evidence of good outcomes.[3] Such treatments may involve sterilization. Adults, including elite women athletes, have also been subjects of such treatment. Increasingly these issues are recognized as human rights abuses, with statements from UN agencies,[4][5] a national parliament,[6] and ethics institutions.[7] Intersex organizations have also issued joint statements over several years as part of an International Intersex Forum.

And how does that even matter if i said yes to the people that were born with it?

[Ancient Humans]

If they wanted to be a Man and where buried as a Man then let it be, It was what they wanted and the people around them respected the deceased to Refer to them as a He.

To bury a Woman as a Woman when they felt they where supposed to live life as a Man would be Disgraceful.

[Vassenor]

And how does that even matter if i said yes to the people that were born with it?

And what about Compete AIS? Where someone who's chromosomally male develops as a female due to the inability of their cells to respond to Androgens during gestation and later life?

[Simply Tyrone]

And how does that even matter if i said yes to the people that were born with it?

And what about Compete AIS? Where someone who's chromosomally male develops as a female due to the inability of their cells to respond to Androgens during gestation and later life?

As I said, if it is natural, fine. But if it was done procedurally, it is not fine.

[Degenerate Heart of HetRio]

If they wanted to be a Man and where buried as a Man then let it be, It was what they wanted and the people around them respected the deceased to Refer to them as a He.

To bury a Woman as a Woman when they felt they where supposed to live life as a Man would be Disgraceful.

Trans woman = a woman designated male at birth

Trans man = a man designated female at birth

So in this case they buried a woman who already lived as a woman as a man because they held this transition as unnatural and disgraceful.

[Servica]

I am conflicted. On one hand, the person is dead.
On the other, she lived a life of designated femininity.
I can only say that she does deserve to be remembered as the woman that she identified herself as, and lived her everyday life to be.
However, the dead still don't complain. Why do we even have to be buried?

[Simply Tyrone]

If they wanted to be a Man and where buried as a Man then let it be, It was what they wanted and the people around them respected the deceased to Refer to them as a He.

To bury a Woman as a Woman when they felt they where supposed to live life as a Man would be Disgraceful.

Trans woman = a woman designated male at birth

Trans man = a man designated female at birth

So in this case they buried a woman who already lived as a woman as a man because they held this transition as unnatural and disgraceful.

No, not always. It's more like:


Trans woman = a man designated male at birth but then decided to become a woman

Trans man = a woman designated female at birth but then decided to be a man