Federal appeals court says there is no fundamental right to change one's sex on a birth certificate
Federal appeals court says there is no fundamental right to change one's sex on a birth certificate
A federal appeals court panel has ruled that Tennessee does not unconstitutionally discriminate against transgender people by not allowing them to change the sex designation on their birth certificates
You're viewing a single thread.
What a terrible ruling, so many trans people are going to be outed because birth certificates are often used as identification.
That's so weird. Here in Germany I don't even think about my birth certificate because I've never used it for anything. I don't think I've ever even seen it.
The US is extremely weird, because of a phobia of the government tracking them. So there is no national ID like most modern countries...
So you end up with these work arounds like using the birth certificate to identify yourself. It's a really shit system.
There are processes where it is required. E.g. when you become a parent.
However, I think it is allowed to change the gender since 2019.
My first thought then though is that that's an argument against using, or requiring, a birth certificate as ID.
Problematic as it certainly could be, it seems to me that this ruling is fundamentally correct, since a birth certificate is not a record of a person's identity over time, but of their identity at one and only one point in time - at birth. Not just in this case but in all cases, it would seem that the idea of updating a birth certificate is inherently flawed.
Possibly the best solution would be to omit information about sex from birth certificates entirely.
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any circumstance where a birth certificate is needed, "now" is going to be more useful than information that is decades out of date. Nothing is gained from holding to an ideal that puts out of date information above current information, so appeals to treat it as sacrosanct always make me wonder exactly what it is that makes people put pointless ideals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
"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.
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).
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.
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
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.
"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
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
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.
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.
The problem is that it's necessary to update a birth certificate if you change your name. So, a birth certificate is a record of your history but is mutable. This really just boils down to the question of why would one's government need a record of their sex?
And that's why, all the way back in the beginning of this, I said that I thought the best solution was to omit information about sex entirely.
Had anyone asked, I could've clarified that. But instead they just ignored it and jumped to the comforting for them but loathsome for me conclusion that I'm just some sort of bigot.
My position as far as that goes is that the fundamental problem is that governments demand and record, and thus effectively make official, a designation of sex. Not only is that rather obviously problematic - I don't see how it can ever be relevant to anything beneficial. I see no way in which it can be said to be necessary for a government to demand and record an individual's sex unless it's to determine that they are to be accorded some specific status or treatment based on it, which is axiomatically discriminatory. If, as the law dictates, the sexes are to be treated equally, then sex is not a relevant detail for a government to record.
And for what it's worth, if I had my way about it, birth certificates wouldn't include a name either. That's long been a personal grudge of mine, though admittedly for a reason some might find odd and/or trivial. I think the only good way to name a person (or a pet, which is actually what initially led me to this conclusion) meaningfully is to get to know them first, and let the name come over time. I think that requiring a name up front has led to an inherently problematic approach to the entire concept of naming.
As far as identification goes, I think the best way to handle it, by far, is to assign on the birth certificate whatever number the government uses for its own identification purposes, and record whatever neutrally and actually usefully identifying characteristic(s) technology allows. It's traditionally been a handprint or similar, but as the technology improves so that it becomes not only possible but trivial, I think it rather obviously should be a DNA profile.
And to again go all the way back to the beginning, as it stands, a birth certificate is a notably poor piece of identification - IMO, a thing that has been made to serve purposes it's simply not well-equipped to serve, and that is the real heart of the problem (which is exactly why the very first thing I said on this thread was that the whole problem addressed here is, to me, just another argument against using a birth certificate as a form of identification in the first place).
To me, and rather obviously, a birth certificate should serve the one and only purpose of recording the birth of some specific person at some specific point in time, and thus establish a record based on which whatever much more useful and up-to-date form of identification could later be issued as necessary.
I mean really - the whole idea of a birth certificate serving as identification in and of itself is farcical, and I've thought that since the very first time I used mine for that. What in the world are they supposedly checking to verify that that's me? "Yep - 17 inches long and 7 pounds, 2 ounces - that's right!"
Pshew. Sorry I threw all that at you, but I really needed that vent. This whole experience of desperately trying and failing to actually communicate my view instead of just being condemned for whatever other people self-servingly assumed my view to be has been extremely unpleasant, and hopefully this will serve as enough clarification to finally put that hurtful bullshit to rest.
@WatDabney @Beaver With that logic I can also say there is no need to specify someone's sex on a birth certificate since it's just that. A certificate to show that you were born on the day and that is it.
From my post:
Possibly the best solution would be to omit information about sex from birth certificates entirely.
And that is in fact exactly why I said that - because a birth certificate really is "a certificate to show that you were born on the day and that is it."
Gender Recognition is multifaceted. Different jurisdictions may hold different concepts about how gender is recognized. In some places gender is legally formulated but this is not to mean that the sex marker on the birth certificate can be changed. Additionally, gender recognition may require medical interventions, sterilization, a psychiatric diagnosis. Some may require several, others none, of the above. Obviously this leads to a nuanced situation.
- Places where gender is formulated in the law generically (Most places with a 10 in the World Freedom Index)
- Places where people can get gender in IDs and driver licenses but not birth certificates (UK until recent times)
- Places where people can get gender changed in birth certificate but with surgery or forced sterilization (Sweden, Germany,Iran)
- Places where people can get gender changed in birth certificate with court orders (Greece)
- Places where people can get gender changed without formal requirements (Malta)
- ...Many other combinations of the above
One problem with this is that noone keeps track. Many reporting bodies can count any of the above as 'gender recognition in law'.
Some relevant stuff: http://them.us/story/federal-judge-blocks-biden-trans-inclusive-title-ix-rules https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/historic-japan-court-ruling-allows-trans-woman-to-change-gender-without-surgery/ar-BB1pViLF
Source: Sociology coursework on trans issues, so some info might be outdated.