57
Federal appeals court says there is no fundamental right to change one's sex on a birth certificate (abcnews.go.com)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/transgender@lemmy.ml
23 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 22 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

Trans people don't change gender. They stop hiding it.

Updating a birth certificate is fixing an error

It's also a strange point to hold ideologically. Why is "at birth" an ideal to hold above others? In literally any circumstance where a birth certificate is needed, "now" is going to be more useful than information that is decades out of date. Nothing is gained from holding to an ideal that puts out of date information above current information, so appeals to treat it as sacrosanct always make me wonder exactly what it is that makes people put pointless ideals above the very real impact incorrect information has

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    "At birth" isn't an ideal - it's a fact. FFS - it's in the actual name of the certificate.

    The exact and only point of a birth certificate is to record that on such-and-such date at such-and-such time, a baby was born to [this] person, and it possessed [these] distinguishing characteristics. That's it. Who or what that baby became later in life isn't relevant. At all.

    In literally any circumstance where a birth certificate is needed, “now” is going to be more useful than information that is decades out of date.

    Which is in fact exactly why I said that "that’s an argument against using, or requiring, a birth certificate as ID" - because a birth certificate, of necessity, is a record of information that's significantly out-of-date.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    The ideal in question isn't "at birth", it's whatever it is that drives folk to think "at birth" somehow matters more than "now"

    because a birth certificate, of necessity, is a record of information that's significantly out-of-date.

    There is no such necessity. I live in Australia. Here, trans folk can get their birth certificate amended to reflect their correct gender.

    If it was a "necessity" that it not be changed, that wouldn't be possible.

    Your insistence that it can't be changed "for reasons" isn't a necessity, it's an ideal (and a harmful one at that).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

    The ideal in question isn’t “at birth”, it’s whatever it is that drives folk to think “at birth” somehow matters more than “now”

    If that's the point you want to argue, you'll have to go find somebody who holds that ideal, which means someone other than me.

    My point is and always has been very simple - a birth certificate is a just that - a record that on some specific date at some specific time, a baby was born to some specific person. That's it. That's all it is.

    That doesn't mean or even imply that "'at birth' matters more than 'now'." It means that a birth certificate has one and only one job - to record a birth - and anything and everything after that is some other document's job.

    And in fact, I would say it's undeniable that "now" is more important than "at birth," which, again, is exactly why the very first thing I said was that, to me, the whole issue is an argument against using, or requiring, a birth certificate for ID.

    To me, it's as if you're arguing that a doorbell should also be a microwave oven, and when I point out that a doorbell's job is to be a doorbell, you accuse me of holding the "ideal" that doorbells are more important than microwave ovens.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

    As I said, Australian birth certificates don't work the way you describe. They aren't static and locked in to "at birth" as they're able to be updated.

    The fact that many birth certificates work this way means that treating "at birth" as sacrosanct isn't a requirement. It's a preference. And in this case, a preference that actively hurts people, whilst helping no one. You value a false notion of data purity over the lived reality of the people whose lives are damaged by not being able to update their birth certificates.

    Even your fix works around the idea that data can't be changed or updated, when the simplest solution, in place already in many countries, is to let go of the idea that old data is somehow more important than the people that data is from

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    And that's it. No matter how many times and in how many different ways I explain my point, you insist on dishonestly assigning sinister motives to me, and there's absolutely no reason I need to take that sort of abuse from anyone.

    Blocked.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

    "I'm not an idealisist! I'm just so upset by your insistence that data purity doesn't trump the needs of living people, that I'm going to block you!"

    And to clarify, I never suggested that you were a bigot or had sinister motives. I suggested that you perceive data purity as some sort of ideal that needs to be upheld at all costs. And because you prioritise data purity, all of your "solutions" sustain data purity, but do it in ways that just won't happen.

    But in the mean time, in the world we are both living in right now, a change that doesn't uphold data purity as the primary goal, is achievable, and literally saves lives.

    You aren't sinister. You just have your priorities in the wrong place, because to you, this is hypothetical and driven by an idealised perspective of what the world could be, rather than the reality of what it is right now, and the harm that is already happening because of it

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child)

    Do they maintain a record of it's alterations though.

    Ed: answer yes, so there is still record that it is not your birth gender it just isn't easily accessible unless the legal system gets involved.

    If you were born in N.S.W. and have had gender reassignment surgery, you can apply to have your birth certificate amended to reflect your correct gender. The new birth certificate will not show that you have changed your gender, but there will be a note on your new certificate that says your birth was "previously registered in another name". Your birth will be registered in the current year showing the new sex. Access to your original birth record is restricted by legislation, but can be accessed under certain circumstances

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child)

    Yep, which is fine. A record of all amendments to official documents is expected. That's not the issue though. The issue is the version of the document that people need to use in daily life. And that should be relevant and current.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    We do not have that in the us as name and gender changes are generally civil suit that only maintain limited private record that is not indexable by relevant agencies.

    It's why it's an issue to change them, they're going to imply credit or identity theft would be easier if alterations were allowed.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent