In case anyone is still not seeing the human rights issues, an example of a relevant human right is
+ The right personal privacy without government invasion. Thus, medical treatment should not be held hostage to a willingness to reveal intimate details of ones private life to a psychiatrist. Treatment for transsexualism without involvement of mental health professionals is a fundamental human right for those who desire no mental health involvement. This arises because there is no clear and convincing evidence that psychiatry alone can improve the transsexual condition even slightly.

@ the draft version of the ICD-11, which treats transsexuality as a health condition similar to pregnancy (though I would personally classify it as a chronic condition and thus more akin to diabetes or other chronic hormone imbalances).

The relevant part of ICD-11 is in a status of back to the drawing board. See the recent speech by HELENA NYGREN-KRUG, Health and Human Rights Adviser, WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION. http://www.coe.int/t/commissioner/Source/LGBT/Launch/HNygren-Krug_WHO.pdf
The key part of that speech reads

How can we ensure that we address the health care needs of transgender populations without further stigmatizing them? I hope that transgender people and the transgender movement can help us in addressing this challenge invoking the key human rights principle of participation – {nothing for us without us}.

This is a move AWAY from the idea that transsexuality is a CONDITION at all (irrespective whether similar to pregnancy or similar to diabetes). The ICD contains both condition and non-condition classifications. A possible example might be A factor influencing health status and contact with health services, persons with potential health hazards related to a personal history of suffering gender based discrimination. That could properly be coded as, for example, Z91.9 See http://apps.who.int/classifications/icd10/browse/2010/en#/Z80-Z99

Again, from a human rights perspective, the distinction between an ICD condition classification and an ICD non-pathology classification is crucial but missed by most observers. It relates directly to changing transsexualism from a purely medical matter into a political human rights issue with medical implications.

What is lost in the discussion and publicity is how beneficial this law is for transsexual California residents who were not born in California (and a majority of California residents were not born there).

Formerly they had benefits but it was a stretch and could have easily been lost without changes to enacted laws, now they are secure.

Henry Hall is a nom de plume that gathers neither moss nor kudos for purported clever ideas that aren’t.

Rather such dual marriage is a clear and present protest against unfair marriage laws for transfolk and is certain to attract national publicity in a field where such publicity is rare. Ot at least rarely distinguished T from LBG.

Because she is paid to be a transactivist and that needs to go beyond the familiar, safe and comfortable to be effective.

And finally to make a historical statement rather then being just another nonentity lost to history.

@ For a trans woman to renege on her own self and say “I am a man” is a complete contradiction of her struggle to transition and be her true self.

That would be true, but it is not reportedly what Meghan Stabler did. Rather she said “Under Texas law I am still considered male for purposes of marriage and wish to use that fact”. A right and proper subversion of a corrupt government.

And, by the way, I offer my apologies for referring to Meghan Stabler as Marilyn Stabler. Only the names change, not the substance of the challenge to stand up as a heroine or be contemptuously consigned to the dustbin of self-serving history.

Because they are part of an activist political organization out of conviction rather than out of desire for income.

As a leading light of HRC, Marilyn Stabler is not entitled to privacy in such matters. As Elizabeth Vasquez (Ecuador) said “Must we play it straight? Are we entitled to subvert their institutions, especially those that have historically discriminated outrageously against us? Of course we are!”.

Now what Marilyn Stabler should do, for the cause, is to marry a MAN in California. Since each state (CA and TX) regards the other state’s marriage as same-sex and therefore not recognized then there is no bigamy at state level. And since there is no FEDERAL law against bigamy what we have is the first plural marriage in more than 100 years in America that is legal and must be recognized by the Federal Government. Now we have truly shown how absurd their laws are and how the Federales must be shamed into action.

Would this be dangerous? Probably not; but in a worst case scenario it is an opportunity to go to prison in historical martyrdom for the cause.

How about it Marilyn? Do you have the guts? I thought not.