What is Digg?Sponsored by Sony make.believe
Award Winning Filmmaking view!
youtube.com - Watch how Jessica Sanders turned a family tradition into award winning filmmaking.
227 Comments
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -19/+294"The 48-year-old utility worker agreed to pay her $1,250 a month in alimony. Since then, Julia Roach, 55, had a sex change and legally changed her name to Julio Roberto Silverwolf."
If the bitch/bastard can afford to have a sex change he/she doesn't need alimony from his/her ex husband.
"The legal fight is the second transsexual rights showdown in Pinellas County in less than a week. On Friday, transsexual activists from around the country packed a City Commission meeting in neighboring Largo to oppose the firing of City Manager Steve Stanton after he announced he was a transsexual."
??? WTF is going on in Florida? - Nudar, on 10/12/2007, -17/+222Whether or not this argument works, I have to give props to the (real) man for trying.
- plnegative1, on 10/12/2007, -17/+200I feel like a dolphin so I should go get surgery to become one.
- evilTak, on 10/12/2007, -7/+112"If the bitch/bastard can afford to have a sex change he/she doesn't need alimony from his/her ex husband."
Apparently you're not familiar with divorce proceedings in the US... - AntBing, on 10/12/2007, -3/+102That was a bit more than 2 cents, more like $5.00 worth.
- grve, on 10/12/2007, -9/+97the man should change his gender to a woman and let the ex-bitch pay him alimony :)
- ICSU, on 10/12/2007, -7/+93Silverwolf?
- Nougat, on 10/12/2007, -11/+74@godofpumpkins (#5896467)
The problem with that argument is that alimony is paid only to someone with whom the payer has been married to in the past, which, by definition here in the US, would be someone of the opposite gender. The argument that "the person to whom I have been paying alimony is now a man, and I, as a man, could not have been married to a man in the past, hence I should not have to pay alimony" is a weak one. If that were true, one could also argue that the payee should have to reimburse all the alimony "wrongfully" paid to this point.
A more interesting case would be if someone first had a sex change, THEN got married to someone of the now opposite gender who was a conjoined twin, THEN got divorced, THEN one of the conjoined twins also had a sex change operation. Oh, and the first person was a midget. That would be awesome. - re0turin, on 10/12/2007, -8/+67never will I stop in a bar in florida
- Chewie67, on 10/12/2007, -12/+64I tend to agree with his assessment.
If you can afford a sex change ($$$, I would guess), you don't need alimony.
Child support (if that's an issue) is one thing, but Alimony? No sir! - datastorageguy, on 10/12/2007, -8/+55This is just insanity all of it. Stop the planet I want off.
- siszam, on 10/12/2007, -12/+57Alimony ends if the ex wife remarries. It should sure as heck end if the ex wife gets a penis attached.
- bigjoeportagee, on 10/12/2007, -6/+49Alimony is given to support the lifestyle that the ex-spouse was accustomed to while they were married, often based on on reasons that fredxor mentioned,
I would argue that this was not the lifestyle he maintained for his ex-wife while married so why should he continue funding it, but this argument probably would not get him very far anyways,
He's *****, not only is he out 1250 a month for the rest of her/his life he has to pay it for a dude, talk about being kicked when your down, his buddies probably rip on him about this every day,
The is the about the first time I heard of a man winning anything in divorce court even if the man used to have a vagina. - CoreyP319, on 10/12/2007, -11/+52Sounds like someone wants to have their "cake" and eat it too.
Could someone please explain to me why there is still alimony? Especially if children aren't involved? - Hawker400, on 10/12/2007, -7/+47His ex-wife must be a real dick.
- dreicher, on 10/12/2007, -21/+54@godofpumpkins
Typical Digg-style, you're getting dugg down not because of your insight and argument, but because you have the audacity to state the obvious and UNPOPULAR opinion. Alimony is a legal contract and consequence of divorce. Its not merit-based. The man may have a reasonable cause of action for annulment based on fraud; however, simply because his ex-wife radically changed her appearance doesn't allow him to say "I don't want to pay anymore". His $1250 per month is not contingent on her future behavior in any way - with the obvious exception of re-marriage (pretty unlikely).
While my heart goes out to the guy...the same argument could be said that if he can afford a lawyer, he can afford the alimony. Nowhere does it state that $1250 per month is a financial hardship for him.
As for what constitutes gender it has nothing to do with "moving parts". Think XY here, folks. - dunezone, on 10/12/2007, -26/+57Were missing the point here, this husband(former) not only turned his wife(former) gay/bi but also into a man.
- catalysis, on 10/12/2007, -7/+35"..the same argument could be said that if he can afford a lawyer, he can afford the alimony. Nowhere does it state that $1250 per month is a financial hardship for him."
No, that is totally false and a terrible comparison. Alimony is not how much you can afford to give without incurring financial hardship. That's ridiculous. Alimony is awarded so that the woman (usually) can continue the standard of living to which she was accustomed.
Alimony can be changed if circumstances which warrant it come up, such as the woman suddenly coming into a lot of money. However, this is rarely done in the US because women are not treated as equals under divorce law and, for some reason, the women's equality movement hasn't made much progress in that area. /sarcasm - nofxjunkee, on 10/12/2007, -9/+36@coreyp319 (#5895809)
Because many women don't actually want equal rights, they want to pick & choose the best of both worlds. But we all know that there's no problem when some are more equal than others... :/ - Easty, on 10/12/2007, -4/+29Furthermore, 'Silverwolf'?
I think he/she deserves to have his alimony terminated just for that. - GasPoweredGnome, on 10/12/2007, -2/+26What happens if two people (male and female) are married and one of them undergoes a sex change? Is the marriage null and void, is the person legally seen as the opposite sex now?
- bonked, on 10/12/2007, -7/+29Alimony... Ahh, in the day and age of the empowered "I don't need no man" women - yet they still fight for this - I don't get it.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+28Your gun's digging into my hip.
- derherr, on 10/12/2007, -7/+27Not a *real* dick, just a cleverly manufactured artificial one.
- fredxor, on 10/12/2007, -7/+25I think this guy is right. If it's illegal to be married to someone of the same sex, then he should not have to pay alimony if his ex-wife gets a sex change. If his wife left him because she decided she didn't like being a woman, then she should have never gotten alimony in the first place.
- fredxor, on 10/12/2007, -6/+23Sometimes, alimony is awarded to an ex-wife if the marriage prevented her from obtaining an education that she otherwise would've had. For instance, she gets married, doesn't have to work, so she doesn't bother getting a degree or something, or the husband could've forbid her from getting a higher education or something.
- godofpumpkins, on 10/12/2007, -6/+20@Nougat: thanks for being the only one to attempt to actually argue with my point, rather than just digging me down cause "ewww she has a penis now she's a man and must be superrich for getting an operation!!!!!!1!!1 zomg"
but that argument essentially states that because she's now legally a man, that the marriage never existed? by that same reasoning, a man whose wife died was never married, because we currently don't allow marriage with dead people, and because his spouse is now dead, they could never have been married.
the contract of alimony was made on the basis of an evaluation on the part of the legal system of the couple's relative financial status. had she decided to change her name to her maiden name after divorce, the alimony would not change. why is changing her name to something unrelated different? why is changing her external appearance different? as I said in my earlier post, this is still the same person. their name and appearance has changed significantly, but to the government and legal system it is still the same person. his (ex-her) financial means have not changed (and if they had, then that would be the basis for the rescinding of alimony, not the sex change) and as such, the alimony should remain unaffected. the ex-wife's bank accounts are still his, despite his sex and name change, the citizenship is still his, any property he owned is still his, etc. He may have to go through various bureaucratic operations to get the name updated in the various places he's a member of, but alimony is no different. Just because he is now a man doesn't mean he can suddenly support himself, and if we want to argue that women are discriminated against, how are post-op transsexuals any less discriminated against? When was the last time you saw someone with a sex change working at a bank, or just about anywhere other than the street? - fernando26, on 10/12/2007, -4/+17This person has the WORST CASE OF HEMORRHOIDS ... I HAVE EVER SEEN!!!
- HarryBauzonia, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15...and all too often Child Support is also solely for the spouse (or her new boyfriend).
I believe that if a man is required to write a child support check to a woman, the woman should be required to provide receipts showing where the money went, and be punished if it is spent on anything but the child.
Alimony is just morally wrong no matter how it's spun. - nofxjunkee, on 10/12/2007, -19/+31The real question is whether the sex change actually makes that woman a man. In my opinion she is not a man just because she payed to have a ***** sewed over her snatch. Would you guys consider dating a man who has had a sex change to become a woman (or vice versa for the girls)? To me a transsexual does not change their sex at all, they just do scary, unthinkable things to their genitals.
But even with her still being a woman in my eyes, I still I have to side with the husband. If she wants to try to be a man then she should act like a man and not collect alimony from her ex-husband. In his boots I would try the exact same thing so I wish him luck. - catalysis, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15The only man that matters is Benjamin.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+17Now he can beat him up and not worry about hitting a woman.
- drmangrum, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14Alimony being given to healthy women should be done away with. It was intended to give women who had a hard time making it in the workplace a chance to live, well women no longer have it hard in the workplace. Get rid of it.
- godofpumpkins, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14the concept of paying to the name is a language feature because we currently have no other way to refer to people other than by name, in writing. It would be rather obtuse to write "alimony given to the person who was born on the 15th of march 1965, in 37 park ave. ny to the parents john and jill smith, who was the fraternal twin with the black hair, not the one with red hair" so we use their name, instead. You're saying that alimony should be suspended if the wife changes her name back to her maiden name, because it has her ex-husband's name on the contract? Do people who have their names changed under witness protection lose all their property, their citizenship (!!! it has another name in the passport and on the birth certificate!!!!!!!1!!1!) and all other rights, simply because the documents guaranteeing those rights have their old names on it? any such document recognizes the occasional occurrence of name changes, and any agency has processes for updating records to new names.
all that because we have this concept of person that is not tied to their name or their appearance. it's hard to define, but if I get a piercing, I am still the same person. If my leg is amputated, I am still the same person. If I lose all my limbs, I am still the same person. If I change my name, I am still the same person. All this is both the case in common sense, and in the legal system. - pathy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11A lot of people on Digg don't like people that have had sex changes, do they?
- bcasper1, on 10/12/2007, -11/+21I think its ***** up that the wife married him knowing that she had these deep feelings of confusion and then eventually decided to change her sex, its not like one day you wake up and decide " oh today I feel like having a dick, I guess I should get a divorce because I don't wanna be gay." Sucks for the guy to have gotten stuck with this rotten apple.
- whutwhut, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11Being gay is defined by which sex you are attracted to. Being transgender has to do with how you define your gender. Gender is different from sex. Your sex is what you were born with. Your gender is how you relate to the world and how you are emotionally and mentally. A transgender could potentially identify as hetero or gay.
The fact that this is the US is relevant, but in my opinion, mostly because there are other cultures that are much more accepting of transgender. They understand that this happens sometimes, and don't get all hysterical and hateful on these people, unlike the apparent majority of Digg posters.
from wiki:
Transgender Individuals in non-Western cultures
This article primarily describes Western modes of transgenderism, but many other cultures have or have had similar phenomena:
Many Native American groups recognised [19] the existence of more than two genders, now referred to as Two-Spirit [20] (the term berdache is now deprecated [21]). Examples include the Lakota male-bodied winkte [22] and the Mohave male-bodied alyhaa and female-bodied hwamee. [23] Spouses of two-spirited people would not necessarily have been regarded as gender-different. [23]
In Thai culture, there is the kathoey, who is very similar to the English definition of transgender, but is sometimes broader, including effeminate gay males.[citation needed]
South Asian cultures have hijra, who can be born intersex, or (more commonly), are assigned a male sex at birth and later choose to live as a third sex, surgically removing their male genitals and wearing women's clothes. See, for example, the Peoples’ Union for Civil Liberties, Karnataka (PUCL-K). (2003). Human Rights Violations against the Transgender Community: A Study of Kothi and Hijra Sex Workers in Bangalore, India. [24]
Chinese cultures have a wide variety of transgender modes of existence. See transgender in China.
In Iran, Ayatollah Khomeini instituted state procedures to help pay for sex-change operations in those who identified as transgender. See Transsexuality in Iran.
Mukhannathun are gender-variant [25] (typically male-to-female) persons of the Islamic faith who "...played an important role in the development of Arabic music in Umayyad Mecca and, especially, Medina, where they were numbered among the most celebrated singers and instrumentalists...".[26]
Muxe are a third gender (physically male) in Zapotec culture.[27]
The ancient Gallae were castrated [28] followers of the Phrygian goddess Cybele and can be regarded as transgender in today's terms.[29][30] - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -10/+20I side with the man...the real man.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14She-man or not, I'm still against the concept of alimony. Every woman has the capactiy to work for a living just like a man. This isn't the 50's where most women stay at home baking cookies and vacuuming. If they are no longer married then why should the man have to have any ties, financial or otherwise, with this bitch unless it's child support payment? Women always want to have they're cake and eat it too, even if they invert their vaginas and pump themselves full of testosterone they're still women, and still want you to suffer.
- godofpumpkins, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14*sigh* so many knee-jerk reactions without actually putting any thought into it. I'd be interested to see what arguments people can come up with against what I wrote earlier, but the sad truth of it is that any argument I present (including this one,) regardless of its merit, is going to be dugg down because I didn't jump on the bandwagon and say "eww how could you ever pay alimony to a man!" (***** male chauvinists)
the male majority on digg is definitely showing its nasty face (and since I'm sure people will ask, yes, I am male) - Dycacian, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9That is the real question. What is the legal definition of a man and a woman. . is it what they were when they were born? or what their current organs are? This would also answer the question as to whether the transsexual can now marry a person of the new opposite sex. Would it be counted as same sex marriage after the change?
- mortigon, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14"you'd be missing out on a lot avoiding bars in Florida..."
Like penis? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+15This is why all people should be REQUIRED to have a pre-nuptual agreement before getting married. All the people who say "Well, that sure is romantic." or "That is a sure sign of love" don't get the point. A marriage isn't love. A marriage is a contract between two people who are IN LOVE. (Or think they are.) The lvoe part has already been established. The marriage itself is not love.
A lot of the traditions of marriages are outdated. Things like the bride's family paying for the wedding, and alimony, for the most part. The brides family paying for the wedding was a thank you to the groom for taking the financial burden of the woman who could, of course, not support herself. That is ***** now. Alimony was hte same thing. A woman could never support herself in the eyes of the law, so if she was divorced, and therefore "damaged goods" it might take her awhile, if even, to find someone else to support her.
The only time alimony should be awarded is if one of the spouses DOES give up their career at the request of the other. (Or for kids, etc.) Because then, yes, the person (usually the wife) has severely hurt her earning potential when the marriage is over. So to make it easier for the wife to claim it, it should be spelled out ina pre-nup saying that her husband wishes her to stay home, and thereofre in the event of a divocrse, she will be compensated.
That being said, it should not be limited to wives. A great example is Nick Lachey and Jessica Simpson. When they got married he was by far the bigger money earned in the family. And he basically gave up his career (though it was dying anyway) for her. Then she made millions. I am not saying alimony, but that was a perfect example of a husband who should have been given money. With Newleyweds, which wouldn't have happened without Lachey, Jessica Simpson would have been a nobody. He helped her get to where she was, and therefore deserved some of hte financial gian he helped her obtain.
(Then again, she is back to being a nobody, so...) - scoreloot, on 10/12/2007, -7/+15I agree with the husband. He paid alimony to his wife, now she is a he and no longer his ex-wife. And he never married a man.
On alimony, should very much be like unemployment insurance.
If you quit, you get nothing.
If fired, you get something. - aussiekevin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Many relationships are based on lies. That has no bearing on the usual reasons for alimony (lost educational opportunities, etc.) Moreover, it's not really obvious anyway that just because she became a he, the whole relationship was a lie from the get go. We have no idea whether that is the case.
- floorman56, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10Man this makes my head spin
If she was still a woman and she remarried the payments stop because there is a "man" to take care of her.
But now she is a man and if she married a woman does the husband still have to pay?
If not then why does he have to pay now because in the eyes of the law ( and anyone who sees her/him) she/he is a man and can now take care of her/his self.
Not a can of worms but a whole 6 pack - dramaDodger, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10Being gay (which I am) isn't about being happy with what you are born as, although that too is important (for anyone, not just gays.) Being gay means that you are physically and/or emotionally attracted to persons of the same gender. It should be a social matter, not a legal matter. The law should be applied equally to all persons without concern over gender of said person OR that person's partner/spouse.
Trust me when I tell you that there are plenty of gay people who are not happy with what they were born with. I know plenty personally. I can also say the same about straight people. Being happy with who you are is by no means mutually exclusive with being straight or gay either one. So, no, that is not what being gay is about. I will concede that it is PART of being a happy gay. I know. I am a happy gay.
Now, say there is a person, a man. He likes women sexually and emotionally, so he is not gay. However, he feels like a woman himself. Maybe he's very effeminate, like pretty clothes and makeup, you know. He just feels very feminine inside, like a woman. He has the operations, takes the hormones, the whole bit. This person now looks, acts, sounds and presents herself as a woman. Would you deny that person the respect of acknowledging her as a woman? If not, then is she now gay? She is a woman. She likes women sexually and emotionally. Is she not gay? Still think sex changes really have nothing at all to do with homosexuality? Hmmm.... Maybe that's why they are included in the common abbreviation of LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender), because they are all related and DO have something to do with each other. BTW, transsexual is a subset of transgender. - HarryBauzonia, on 10/12/2007, -6/+13Alimony is an antiquated idea that the feminist organizations have found convenient to ignore.
All alimony should be abolished, not just his.
Oh, and sewing on a fake dick doesn't make a woman a man. Cutting a dick off doesn't make a man into a woman. The whole concept of "sex-change" is a fraud. - TriZz, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11@dycacian: The definition of a man is X and Y chromosomes. This is not something that surgery can grant. If you put a Ferrari body kit on a Pontiac Fiero -- really all you have is a Fiero with a Ferrari body kit.
Now, morally -- there's another argument about who's to say that her mind doesn't view herself as a man, and the world views her as a man, so why can't she be considered a man. Me, personally would consider her a man -- especially after going through so much to feel complete. However, scientifically, she is still a female. - vawksel, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9@TriZz
Scientifically you are correct. Legally you couldn't be more wrong. A friend of mine underwent a sex change a few years ago, his surgery was actually filmed on the Discovery Health channel in a special called "A trashcan of skin", but thats not the point.
He is now legally a woman. The "scientific" *he* legally has to mark "Female" on all tax papers, the now "she" must use the ladies bathroom. She can only legally marry a man now. Other than the new few states that allow gay marriage, She can ONLY marry a Man. She (previously a He) is no longer legally allowed to marry a Woman.
In the eyes of the USA government, this person is now a female, end of story.
It's not easy to get a full blow sex change, it takes years and years of work to make it happen, psychologists etc, before any surgery.
As far as this case goes, it is very interesting indeed. It all depends on the fine print I guess in the law when it comes to sex changes.
The way people who've had sex changes talk, they say "The old me is dead, I am not that person anymore, I've been reborn". -- Some of the phrases I've heard. I wonder how the US Gov law treats it, if at all similarly, this guy might have a case. -
Show 51 - 100 of 229 discussions
