The lengths to which people in love will go to be together have never been better illustrated than by Shakespeare. The recent “transgression” of trans civil-rights leader, Meghan Stabler, who used two of Texas’ own bigoted anti-equality laws to hers and her female partner’s advantage, by marrying earlier this year appear rather inconsequential seen through the lens of Romeo and Juliet. After all, no one died for this couple’s nuptials.
That said, there was a reason San Diego LGBT Weekly saw fit to publish news that Stabler and the woman who is now her wife (at Stabler’s request, and because her pregnant wife was sent to the emergency room because, she says, of stress our exclusive story caused, we will not disclose the wife’s name) accepted a marriage license that reflects the former’s gender as her gender assigned at birth – male. It has to do with the appearance of hypocrisy, or, in the eyes of some, actual hypocrisy.
While Stabler works as a professional in the tech industry, her prominence as both a board member for the Human Rights Campaign – the nation’s strongest advocacy group for lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgender men and women, and one of the most effective lobbying groups in the U.S. – and her well attended speaking engagements coast-to-coast make her a public figure. Though it may be sad, it’s a fact that at this moment in history, public figures aren’t afforded any guarantees to have private lives. Furthermore, to the extent they do have private lives, the “off-limits” aspects they ambiguously enjoy are confined to issues that have no relation to the reason they are public figures. Meghan Stabler is famous for fighting for equal rights for transgender Americans as well as trans people worldwide. Foremost among those rights is the right to marry and receive all of the legal and financial benefits entailed therein. Any assertions that this newsmagazine had “no right” to print breaking news about Stabler’s marriage are absurd. Stabler the activist is, arguably, the nation’s most powerful voice for trans rights. Stabler, the married lesbian, did take issue with San Diego LGBT Weekly’s decision to run the article about her marriage. On that account, her protestations fall on deaf ears.
However, a grave error was committed in reporting the story – an error to which this journalist must confess and apologize. I had contact information that would have allowed me to reach her directly for comment. I did not do so. Contact was made with HRC – the organization that is the fountainhead for Ms. Stabler’s authority to be heard more resoundingly than perhaps any other trans person in the U.S. Though I’ll mention that I flat-out forgot that I had obtained direct contact information for Meghan Stabler, there is no excuse for this mistake.
Two aspects of the story (Issue 48 Page 11) stick out beyond my glaring shortfall:
One: In spite of the risks to her public image, and the potential for the information to become public – not to mention great personal strife that could result in her paying career and with regard to family matters, Stabler found the rewards inherent in officially sanctioned unions. Of course many are of monetary nature, and some are about legal protection and assurances. But, I defy anyone to say the primary purpose for Stabler’s action was not to be WITH the woman she loves, not just with her.
How do I know this? When I did reach Meghan Stabler, she was understandably upset. Upset about the damage the revelation might or might not do to her as a trans-community leader? No. Upset about what might happen to her if her employer felt threatened by the negative publicity she would receive? There was no mention of it. How about the threats against her life she had already received because of the article? It wasn’t until the end of our conversation when tempers had cooled that she did mention that. Stabler’s first words when we spoke were “Do you know what you’ve done to my wife and (unborn) child?”
Two: The real story is the lengths to which two Americans in love had to go simply to be married. In a land based on the principle of equality under the law, a married couple had to go along with a lie – two lies in fact, perpetrated by the state of Texas; one that says a women is a man, and another that says it is consistent with the United States Constitution to bestow rights upon one group, while denying those same rights to another.
At least Romeo could have married Juliet if their parents weren’t prejudice. Stabler and her wife had an entire government against them.
THOM SENZEE, Editor
San Diego LGBT Weekly
So is the cost of being a public figure who does something that is monumentally stupid no matter how you or anybody else tries to rationalize it.
Stabler has lost all credibility as any kind of Representative of women of transsexual history. It’s obvious Stabler put zero thought into what this person did. Furthermore if Stabler was a true, legitimate woman of transsexual history the very idea of fraudulently claiming to be male would have so upset her she would not have done it for no reason, not even to save her own life.
The LGBT has no clear direction when it comes to marriage equality, no movement to repeal marriage benefits afforded to heterosexual couples. No direction in regard to repealing the barely 120 old licensing laws, and no concern at all for alternatives to marriage.
I have said this before and I will say it again
The LGBT’s approach to marriage equality is like a hillbilly doing brain surgery with a rusty ice pick.
You simply don’t know what the hell you are doing, if you did you would be working for marriage equality for all.
A selfish movement is no movement I want to be a part of.
NYF
Her marriage is no-one’s plaything. No, you don’t have any right to comment on it. Or do you think the Prop 8 vote was legitimate? That others have the right to dictate to you over what is an intensely personal issue?
Be careful about treating others like this, or you’ll find others treating you the same way. And there are more of them, they can make it stick.
Then maybe the person in question should have kept it private Zoe.
Anything made public is fair game.
What makes you think this person has some privilege above the rest of us?
I want to know.
Oh wait I forgot this person is something other than “normal” that gives them privilege none of us who are normal will ever have.
NYF, ms Stabler did keep her wedding private and never went public with her marriage. It was leaked to the media by a misguided individual seeking to do harm to her, her wife and her wife’s child. The sensationalism was brought on her by others who hid their identity, not by her.
Be that as it may the wedding wasn’t private enough and Stabler is a public figure and most of all after this act isn’t a legitimate transsexual at all.
Do you have proof this exposure was deliberate?
Or is this just some way for Stabler to apply some spin control.
Actually, as I pointed out elsewhere, we do have a right to comment on this because this person has made himself out to be a spokesman with a group that I personally wish would stay out of transsexual issues. While I disagree with Prop 8, and voted against it, and support efforts to overturn it, I also recognize that, legally, states have a current legal right to restrict marriage. You see, unlike some, I deal with reality.
But, none of this has anything to do with the issue at hand. Stabler engaged in a selfish act that harms transsexual women, and does nothing to actually further the cause of marriage equality. He simply took advantage of his male privilege while reinforcing the idea that women of a transsexual history are “really” men. So yes, I have a right to comment on his marriage, and will continue to do so.
Hi Jennifer,
If you’d like to resubmit this comment without referring to Meghan Stabler as him or a man, it will be approved. You can still make your argument without using him or himself or he. We might consider approving a comment that contained one use of a male preposition in quotes ( e.g. “If she doesn’t want to be referred to as “him,” Meghan Stabler should … ” However, if a trans person identifies as a woman; she is a woman for the purposes of this Web site. Referring to someone who says she is female with a masculine preposition is considered a personal attack.
Best regards,
Ed.
The problem sir is the person in question took up the role as a man in order to get married. By the for the record I supported Prop 8 because it only provided marriage freedom for homosexuals, prop 8 doesn’t address alternatives to marriage and doesn’t strike down marriage privilege.
As usual the homosexuals can’t think of anybody except for themselves.
I checked the Texas Family Code and all you need to say is that you are a person of transsexual history to be given a marriage license as in Texas the court ruled that your biological sex at birth is the only sex that is recognized by the state. So if I understand it correctly you don’t claim to be male or female just that you were born with a both condition and you are granted a license.
So what, change the law don’t violate laws just because you or someone else doesn’t agree with them. Should I go rob banks because I don’t like the big banks? is that moral?
You and others are so far out in left field, you don’t even know it.
This is a nation of laws and the laws are there to be enforced when they work and changed when they don’t.
You and others seem to think you are privileged, the laws don’t apply to you. No self respecting woman or man of transsexual history would be caught dead committing such a fraud.
So, basically you are saying that I have to lie, and deny my opinions to pass muster. Sorry, I stand by what I said. If you wish to engage in censorship, then that is your choice. But that simply lowers you to the level of those you claim to oppose. And, quite simply, your position is a person attack on transsexuals who might not share the view that simply claiming to be a woman makes you one. It completely trivializes the very real pain we have experienced.
And here I thought you might actually have the courage to deal with positions that are not lock step with your own narrow-minded views. But no, you, like so many others are afraid of disagreement.