Wherein Walt Heyer Attempts To Invalidate Transsexuals In One Paragraph

I'll give Heyer this much - on the whole, he has tried to stay out of the usual language of invalidation and erasure that is so common among those who claim transsexuals are less than human.  However, somewhere along the way, he must have decided that he couldn't turn down the opportunity and makes the following statement:

It's easy to point out that DNA tells the true story of male or female.  In a court of law, you can convict a man of rape and murder just on the strength of a DNA test alone.  But a DNA test is never permitted to determine male or female sex gender for transsexuals in court?  Why is this?  Because a DNA test would prove with absolute certainty the transgender hormone therapy and surgery had failed to change a male into a female, or a female to a male.  Transgender activists know using DNA would expose the fraud and damage the social acceptability of changing genders.  Therefore, they have successfully prevented DNA from being used as the criteria to identify gender in the courts.

Wow.  Just Wow.  In one paragraph, Heyer has claimed that transsexuals are engaging in deliberate fraud, and on the other hand, the transsexuals out there are so astonishingly powerful politically that they have been able to stop the courts from using a particular piece of evidence to determine sex.

I'd love to know where this all powerful transsexual lobby is.  You'd think that it would be paying more attention to shutting down the malice and discrimination that transsexuals face on a near daily basis.  Further, I'm more than a little mystified how a tiny minority of the population which isn't terribly wealthy could hold that kind of clout.

Ah well.  I'm going to chalk that one up to being the fanciful musings of someone who lacks any coherent evidence to explain things more rationally.

Looking at his other claim about DNA, however, requires a little more careful handling.

First of all, Mr. Heyer is really referring to chromosomes and specifically Sex Chromosomes.  Men have XY chromosomes, and women have XX chromosomes.  Or so the general rule goes.  Sadly, general rules are prone to strange little things called exceptions.  Consider women born with Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome  for a moment.  A woman born with CAIS has a Y chromosome, and yet developed in utero a female body.  To all outward appearances, and socialization, these people are women even though they have a Y chromosome. 

No doubt, Mr. Heyer would claim that an exception could be made in such a situation, after all the person had been born female.  (or was declared female at birth, more correctly)  His argument would be that such cases are so rare as to be irrelevant, or some such.  How rarity of a condition fits into dealing with transsexuals is a bit of a mystery to me - it's not like transsexualism constitutes a very large portion of the population to begin with, so making exceptions based on rarity seems a trifle ridiculous.

My underlying point is that there are very real conditions which Mr. Heyer's test would not work for, and these are people who are not transsexual themselves.

However, as other writers have pointed out, there is a great deal of evidence emerging that suggests that transsexuality may well have significant biological factors which influence it.  If you are going to make an exception for one case, why would you not make a reasonable exception in the case of a transsexual?  Especially in the absence of any conclusive evidence that transsexuality doesn't have significant biological factors involved?

However, Heyer seems to have fallen for the standard rightwing dogma that transsexuals are "fraudulent" somehow, simply because changing chromosomes isn't possible (yet!).  Well, unfortunately for him and his "allies" (I'm reluctant to call the likes of Peter LaBarbera an ally to anyone or anything), there are enough exceptions in the real world that trying to argue against transsexuals on this basis is really quite ridiculous. 

Allowing the original birth record gender to be altered has unintended consequences.  It can be misused, perhaps by a terrorist to hide his identity.  Or, some would say it will legitimize same sex marriage.  With an amended birth record in hand (changed from male to female), the new female would be free to enter into a legal marriage with a man.

First of all, the supposition about terrorists is really quite ridiculous.  You don't just walk into a clinic and have GRS one day on a whim.  No surgeon would touch you without supporting documentation from a therapist.  That's a red herring at best.

His comments about legitimizing same-sex marriage are equally ludicrous.  A gay male is a man who loves other men ... as a man ... having GRS would be anathema to such a person as they would no longer have something that they would consider essential to their masculinity. 

Ah ... the joys of listening to arguments that boil down to little more than a poorly considered attempt at erasure.  Sorry, Mr. Heyer, but you just haven't got this one.