Government withdraws transgender appeal

DubArk

That's one small step for man/women kind and one giant leap again for Ireland.... even if they were pushed into it!!!




“The Government has dropped its challenge to a High Court declaration that Irish law on transgender rights is in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The Government must now introduce legislation recognising the new gender of transgender persons and allowing them to obtain new birth certificates or it will face condemnation from the European Court of Human Rights.”


http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0621/foyl.html

rainbow kirby

Hopefully the required legislation is introduced as soon as possible! Great news.

LittleSam

well I'm all for equal rights but i still dont think its correct that the birthcert should be changed. lydia was a man for most of her life and fathered children. Id love to have been a fly on the wall in her european courtcase & find out how legally the birthcert can be changed. At the end of the day, lydia was born a man - she may hvae got the snip, takes hormonal medicine and feels like a woman but that does not make her a woman.

Annasopra

LittleSam wrote: »

well I'm all for equal rights but i still dont think its correct that the birthcert should be changed. lydia was a man for most of her life and fathered children. Id love to have been a fly on the wall in her european courtcase & find out how legally the birthcert can be changed. At the end of the day, lydia was born a man - she may hvae got the snip, takes hormonal medicine and feels like a woman but that does not make her a woman.

It's legally changed in EVERY other member country of the EU and the Council of Europe

Freiheit

The problems which denial of such have caused are huge.....Our government should have spent it's time and resources on more important matters than stamping on the rights of a minority group.

22 Billion to Anglo-irish Bank, that's more than half the national income for a year,I'm truly shocked by our government...shocked, ashamed and bewildered.

Rev Hellfire

Guess it all depends on if the birth cert is a historical record which should not be altered, or just another form of personal identification in which case it can. Kind of like getting a new passport once you've shaved off your beard.
There's validity in both stances I guess.

DubArk

LittleSam wrote: »

well I'm all for equal rights but i still dont think its correct that the birthcert should be changed. lydia was a man for most of her life and fathered children. Id love to have been a fly on the wall in her european courtcase & find out how legally the birthcert can be changed. At the end of the day, lydia was born a man - she may hvae got the snip, takes hormonal medicine and feels like a woman but that does not make her a woman.

You’re not really been controversial, you're just going along with the a mind set that has on many occasions reflected your outdated opinion.

As been a fly on the wall, you’ll probably find it more useful to do some research on the subject and inform yourself.

wonderfulname

LittleSam wrote: »

At the end of the day, lydia was born a man - she may hvae got the snip, takes hormonal medicine and feels like a woman but that does not make her a woman.

Rev Hellfire wrote:

Guess it all depends on if the birth cert is a historical record which should not be altered

At the end of the day Lydia was born with the outward appearance of a man, she is a woman, hence the historical record is wrong and should be altered.


I find this case interesting. I know theres a lot of areas of Irish law where the government challenges things so they do not show up on the EUs radar, as the Irish law in these instances goes against EU legislation, and the whole thing can affect money coming in. Can anyone who knows better than I (which I'm pretty sure is most people here, I'm not very well read on the case) tell me if this is one of those instances or simply Irish conservatism? How long do you think it will take the advisory group to come up with something watertight, i.e. unchallengeable?

ANXIOUS

I think that this is disgraceful. The person in question is a man, was born a man and will always be a man. Just because he got it into his head that he was a she, shouldnt mean he can get a new birth cert.

Birth certs deal with fact, and the fact is the doctor who delievered him confirmed he was male. I believe i was born in the 15th century, can i have my birth cert changed?

ANXIOUS

Johnnymcg wrote: »

It's legally changed in EVERY other member country of the EU and the Council of Europe

That doesnt make it right.

ANXIOUS

wonderfulname wrote: »

At the end of the day Lydia was born with the outward appearance of a man, she is a woman, hence the historical record is wrong and should be altered.

I find your post laughable. Should we only issue birthcerts, when people are old enough to state what sex they want to be? While i feel sorry for his situation, you can not pick your own sex its a lottery. How exactly is the historical record wrong? The man was born with a penis, male bone structure, male hormones and the list goes on.

The only thing female about him is that he thinks he is a female. Serious question has he/ will he have to have a pysc. report done?

rainbow kirby

ANXIOUS wrote: »

I think that this is disgraceful. The person in question is a man, was born a man and will always be a man. Just because he got it into his head that he was a she, shouldnt mean he can get a new birth cert.

Lydia Foy is a woman, who happens to have been born male. The birth certificate is the document required to have a lot of other documents adjusted to reflect transition, so adjustment of the gender marker should be allowed.

Nevyn

ANXIOUS she has had psyc reports done before she started the transition from male to female and before hormoane treatments which happens before surgry.

ANXIOUS you seem very ignorant about the issues surrounding those who are Transgendered and transistion I suggest you go read up on it before you start banging on how about wrong it is when you are coming from a position of ignorance.

I am glad this is happening at last, but it is a shame that yet again the Governemnt of this country has to be strong armed by the EU courts to do what is right.

Rev Hellfire

wonderfulname wrote: »

At the end of the day Lydia was born with the outward appearance of a man, she is a woman, hence the historical record is wrong and should be altered.

All this talk of birth-certs might be a red herring; the issue is the refusal of the Irish government to recognise their state post operation.

That doesn't necessitate a change in the birth cert, not sure why it would. Altering passport etc should be enough you would think.

Beruthiel

ANXIOUS wrote: »

I think that this is disgraceful. The person in question is a man, was born a man and will always be a man. Just because he got it into his head that he was a she

I suggest you educate yourself on this particular subject, your total lack of knowledge is showing.

rainbow kirby

ANXIOUS wrote: »

I find your post laughable. Should we only issue birthcerts, when people are old enough to state what sex they want to be? While i feel sorry for his situation, you can not pick your own sex its a lottery. How exactly is the historical record wrong? The man was born with a penis, male bone structure, male hormones and the list goes on.

The only thing female about him is that he thinks he is a female. Serious question has he/ will he have to have a pysc. report done?

If all you can post is transphobic rubbish, don't post in this thread again.

28064212

rainbow kirby wrote: »

Lydia Foy is a woman, who happens to have been born male. The birth certificate is the document required to have a lot of other documents adjusted to reflect transition, so adjustment of the gender marker should be allowed.

IMO, a birth cert is an historical document that records the circumstances of birth. It should be corrected to allow for errors (e.g. a subsequent paternity test for changing the father's name), but if a detail is true at the time of birth, it shouldn't be changed. Regardless of someone's gender identity when they are an adult, they were born as (physically) a male or a female. The problem is the use of birth certs as a reference for details which may have changed. A transgendered person should absolutely be issued with a new passport, driver's licence etc. but a birth cert is not a mutable document

Nevyn

And the problem with the birth cert being non mutatble on the status of gender is that it then causes issues when a person who has transitions goes to marry.

MicraBoy

28064212 wrote: »

IMO, a birth cert is an historical document that records the circumstances of birth. It should be corrected to allow for errors (e.g. a subsequent paternity test for changing the father's name), but if a detail is true at the time of birth, it shouldn't be changed. Regardless of someone's gender identity when they are an adult, they were born as (physically) a male or a female. The problem is the use of birth certs as a reference for details which may have changed. A transgendered person should absolutely be issued with a new passport, driver's licence etc. but a birth cert is not a mutable document

And by that logic any one born with some kind of genital abnormality should be classified as non-sex on their birth cert.

The whole point is that our understanding of gender has gone beyond just looking at a baby's bits and making a immutable decision. That is proven to be a flawed method.

Rev Hellfire

Thaedydal wrote: »

And the problem with the birth cert being non mutatble on the status of gender is that it then causes issues when a person who has transitions goes to marry.

That's not an issue if the change is recognised in current state documentation.

28064212

Thaedydal wrote: »

And the problem with the birth cert being non mutatble on the status of gender is that it then causes issues when a person who has transitions goes to marry.

With their partner? Or with the state? In the former, I would be of the opinion that a partner has the right to know. For the latter case, that's what I meant about the problem of using certs for reference, it should be a current document (passport etc.), not a historical record

wonderfulname

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

That doesn't necessitate a change in the birth cert, not sure why it would. Altering passport etc should be enough you would think.

Even from that perspective a change in the birth cert is necessary to change all other documentation, the information on your passport reflects the information on your birth cert and besides if your a woman do you really want to be looking at a mans birth cert when you look at your own? or vice versa?

wonderfulname

MicraBoy wrote: »

The whole point is that our understanding of gender has gone beyond just looking at a baby's bits and making a immutable decision. That is proven to be a flawed method.

+1, you articulated my position so much better than I managed

Rev Hellfire

wonderfulname wrote: »

Even from that perspective a change in the birth cert is necessary to change all other documentation, the information on your passport reflects the information on your birth cert and besides if your a woman do you really want to be looking at a mans birth cert when you look at your own? or vice versa?

If the law is updated to reflect a change in gender then the issuance of state documentation will also reflect this change. The birth-cert would simply be the default state.

DubArk

ANXIOUS wrote: »

That doesnt make it right.

NO it makes it Her Human Right!

wonderfulname

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

If the law is updated to reflect a change in gender then the issuance of state documentation will also reflect this change. The birth-cert would simply be the default state.

but is it really a change in gender?

Oh, answer the question you quoted too, would you mind if your own birth cert did not reflect your gender?

deirdre_dub

she may have got the snip, takes hormonal medicine and feels like a woman but that does not make her a woman.

So, what would make her a woman? Please don't tell me that you define a woman by her genes!!! Are someone's genes more important to you than how they relate to you, how they relate to the world, and how they feel about themselves? If so, then what about those people whose genetic gender is neither male nor female (e.g. Klinefelter's syndrome)?

the fact is the doctor who delievered him confirmed he was male

And doctors never make mistakes? If you ask any doctor who knows what the word "intersex" means, then they will tell you that doctors regularly make mistakes in determining someone's gender.

Current research suggests that transgender women have a female brain in a body that is otherwise male. In other words, we cannot but consider ourselves to be female. Call it a birth defect if you must, but it is a real phenomenon that has existed since the year dot.

Should we only issue birthcerts, when people are old enough to state what sex they want to be?

Nope - we should issue birth certs when people are born, and correct them when people are old enough to know if the doctor got it right.

I'm a transgender woman, and I want to make one thing vitally clear. I do not "want" to be a woman. Got it? So why am I taking hormones, why am I growing breasts, why am I asking the doctors for surgery etc? Because I am a woman. I have tried very very very hard, for almost 40 years, to live as a male, and it just doesn't work. I can't do it anymore.

BEING TRANS ISN'T ABOUT WHAT YOU WANT - IT IS ABOUT WHAT YOU ARE.

Got it?

For the men reading this - imagine you were living in a society which pretty much required you to constantly express "femininity" in your mannerisms, your dress and in the way you relate to society. That would be pretty horrible - wouldn't it? Imagine you were looked down on, or even taunted, if you played rough-and-tumble, pursued relationships as men do, and dressed as men do. That is the society I am living in, though in reverse. I am living in a society which expects me to express "masculinity", and I just can't stand it.

The path I am on is the most difficult thing I've ever done, or am ever likely to do. It isn't a "choice". We aren't going to end up in a society where people change their gender willy-nilly, for the simple reason that it isn't possible to change your gender willy-nilly, regardless of how much support the legal and medical professions give to the process. Taking estrogen isn't a walk in the park, even if the results of taking it bring you closer to who you are - it is a major upset to the body's chemistry, and the body reacts in kind.

Altering passport etc should be enough you would think.

It would be IF you never needed to use your birth cert as a document of identity.

Links234

This is wonderful news, I'm very very happy for Lydia Foy and glad that this his finally happened for all transgender people in Ireland.

This "historical document" talk is nonsense.
Trans people aren't trying to alter their histories! Nobody is going around digitally altering all their childhood photos to reflect themselves as they are now. This is about getting legal status as the gender you are, and that impacts on your life in very serious ways, it's not some ploy to re-write history, it's a serious right that transgender people needed but was denied.

But even if we're talking about the birth certificate as a historical record, I would insist that mine is in error. It says male, but that's something I have never been. Some day I would like to get that changed, hopefully in the near future. What I don't want to do is go get all those old christmas morning photos digitally altered and pretend santa brought me Barbies instead of Transformers. I loved those Transformers, and I know there's an irony in that.

Rev Hellfire

wonderfulname wrote: »

but is it really a change in gender?

Yes, its a physical alteration, though I accept your point that neurologically there many be no change in state.

wonderfulname wrote: »

would you mind if your own birth cert did not reflect your gender?

I'm happy to say I can't reliably answer that question, since I believe my birth-cert does reflect my identity.

28064212

deirdre_dub wrote: »

It would be IF you never needed to use your birth cert as a document of identity.

^--- This. Or at least, never needed to use your birth-cert in a situation where gender was an issue.

To my mind, there are two separate facets that make up a gender: physicality and identity. I fully accept that a woman can be trapped in a man's body. Regardless, it is a man's body, and that is what the birth-cert is recording. It's nothing to do with what you may identify as in the future, but it is what you will be identified as for the next 10 minimum years until you're old enough to define it yourself

When you get your name legally changed, is your birth cert changed? (Genuine question, I have no idea). I don't think it should be, but if it is, then the Government have already removed the immutability of the birth cert and don't have a leg to stand on

IrishTonyO

Have to say I am all for equal rights but I do not believe a birth cert should be changed, it is a document of fact at the time of birth and should reflect that. By all means change passports, drivers licence etc. but the birth cert should remain as it was.

deirdre_dub

28064212 wrote: »

^--- This. Or at least, never needed to use your birth-cert in a situation where gender was an issue.

When, for instance, might gender not be an issue when it comes to someone presenting a document of identity and/or of historical fact? If it isn't an issue, then gender should not be on the birth cert at all!

To my mind, there are two separate facets that make up a gender: physicality and identity. I fully accept that a woman can be trapped in a man's body. Regardless, it is a man's body,

That depends on what definition of "man" you are using when you talk of a man's body. Are you using the genetic definition? But then what about those whose genetic gender is neither XX nor XY? Or are you using the definition "whatever was the first thing to come into the doctor's mind"? If so, then what about intersexed people?

and that is what the birth-cert is recording.

Given the myriad of problems with it, it seems to me to be a pretty stupid and irrelevant thing to record.

It's nothing to do with what you may identify as in the future, but it is what you will be identified as for the next 10 minimum years until you're old enough to define it yourself

For some, it takes maybe 3 - 4 years - it depends on how long it takes them to develop a sense of this thing called "gender".

When you get your name legally changed, is your birth cert changed?

That is what the whole Lydia Foy thing was about. At the moment, the answer is "no". Indeed, it isn't possible for a transgender person to change their birth cert at all. However, hopefully in the next few months, it will become possible.

I don't think it should be

Why? Because you love people for their genes? Because you believe that whatever a strange doctor says about a baby that they have only known for a few minutes should follow that person with them for the rest of their lives?

Links234

IrishTonyO wrote: »

Have to say I am all for equal rights but I do not believe a birth cert should be changed

Then you are not for equal rights.

deirdre_dub

IrishTonyO wrote: »

Have to say I am all for equal rights but I do not believe a birth cert should be changed, it is a document of fact at the time of birth and should reflect that. By all means change passports, drivers licence etc. but the birth cert should remain as it was.

Again - why? Because you love people for their genes? Because whatever a strange, imperfect doctor says about a baby that they have only known for a few minutes is somehow important to you even if you never ever get to meet that person as a baby?

IrishTonyO

Links234 wrote: »

Then you are not for equal rights.

Excuse me?
I am for equal rights but that does not include changing historical documents, which are a snapshot in time and reflect the truth at that time.

I don't care if anyone wants to have a sex change, but I do not think it is correct to change the historical past. If the past is to be changed does that mean Lydia's two children now have no father? Are their birth certs going to changed as well? And does it mean her ex-wife was never married? So do we delete all record of the marriage? <Maybe we should send a bill for the false tax allowance they received?

Links234

IrishTonyO wrote: »

Excuse me?
I am for equal rights but that does not include changing historical documents, which are a snapshot in time and reflect the truth at that time.

You cannot say you are for equal rights, and then oppose a change in law that would grant people basic human rights. So no, you are not for equal rights, and saying you are is like someone saying "I'm not racist, but.." and going on to make some horrible racist tirade.

IrishTonyO wrote: »

I don't care if anyone wants to have a sex change, but I do not think it is correct to change the historical past. If the past is to be changed does that mean Lydia's two children now have no father? Are their birth certs going to changed as well? And does it mean her ex-wife was never married? So do we delete all record of the marriage? <Maybe we should send a bill for the false tax allowance they received?

My that's an awfully big straw man you've built, are you trying to burn Nicolas Cage alive!?

Read my post here, I've already answered this nonsense. Trans people are not trying to alter their histories.

deirdre_dub

IrishTonyO wrote: »

I do not think it is correct to change the historical past.

Do you believe in correcting historical mistakes?

If the past is to be changed does that mean Lydia's two children now have no father? Are their birth certs going to changed as well? And does it mean her ex-wife was never married? So do we delete all record of the marriage?

These are all issues that the Government and/or the people involved are going to have to sort out. But to give you some ideas -

Does this mean that her children don't have a father? Of course not!!! It means that they have a female father.

Are their birth certs going to change as well? I don't know, but my understanding is that the deed poll acts as a link to the "old" identity should that link ever be needed.

Does it mean that they were never married? Again, of course not!!! Their marriage was recognised by the State and by the two people involved at the time. Yes it was a "gay" marriage but, at the time, no-one was aware that it was a "gay" marriage, and so it remains valid.

In the UK, before a married person can have their gender recognised, they have to divorce their partner first. They are then free to get a civil partnership with their partner after their gender is recognised.

Don't worry - stop panicking - all these things will be sorted out!!!!!

28064212

deirdre_dub wrote: »

When, for instance, might gender not be an issue when it comes to someone presenting a document of identity and/or of historical fact? If it isn't an issue, then gender should not be on the birth cert at all!

The physical gender and the identity gender are inextricably linked for the first few years (it is of course arguable how long, I chose 10 years out of the air), which is why it should be recorded. Gender isn't important for lots of things you need a birth cert for, once there is legislation in place to account for it

deirdre_dub wrote: »

That depends on what definition of "man" you are using when you talk of a man's body. Are you using the genetic definition? But then what about those whose genetic gender is neither XX nor XY? Or are you using the definition "whatever was the first thing to come into the doctor's mind"? If so, then what about intersexed people?

There are exceptions to everything. In those cases, I would suggest it be up to the parents to decide.

deirdre_dub wrote: »

That is what the whole Lydia Foy thing was about. At the moment, the answer is "no". Indeed, it isn't possible for a transgender person to change their birth cert at all. However, hopefully in the next few months, it will become possible

Or any other person. As I believe it should be

deirdre_dub wrote: »

Why? Because you love people for their genes? Because you believe that whatever a strange doctor says about a baby that they have only known for a few minutes should follow that person with them for the rest of their lives?

No, but I don't care who their biological mother was or where they were born. I still think it should be recorded though

Links234 wrote: »

Then you are not for equal rights.

That's a very unfair thing to say. What this argument has more or less boiled down to is whether a birth cert is an historical record or not. If IrishTonyO (or any other poster) believes that it should be allowed to be changed except in cases of transgenderism, then fine, accuse him of bigotry, but otherwise, debate the points as presented

IrishTonyO

Links234 wrote: »

You cannot say you are for equal rights, and then oppose a change in law that would grant people basic human rights. So no, you are not for equal rights, and saying you are is like someone saying "I'm not racist, but.." and going on to make some horrible racist tirade.



My that's an awfully big straw man you've built, are you trying to burn Nicolas Cage alive!?

Read my post here, I've already answered this nonsense. Trans people are not trying to alter their histories.

I notice you don't answer the questions about her children or her marriage above. If the birth cert is changed that means Denis never existed and a result neither do his children or his marriage.

As a gay Caucasian male, if inside I feel like I am really African American do you think I should be able to change my birth cert?

Rev Hellfire

Nothing like using the bigotry brush to win the argument

As 28064212 stated, few if any are arguing against state documentation getting changed to reflect their revised gender. It simply revolves around historical documentation being immutable.

Links234

28064212 wrote: »

That's a very unfair thing to say. What this argument has more or less boiled down to is whether a birth cert is an historical record or not. If IrishTonyO (or any other poster) believes that it should be allowed to be changed except in cases of transgenderism, then fine, accuse him of bigotry, but otherwise, debate the points as presented

You can't say you are for equal rights and then oppose people getting those rights!

wonderfulname

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

As 28064212 stated, few if any are arguing against state documentation getting changed to reflect their revised gender. It simply revolves around historical documentation being immutable.

Revised: To look at again for the detection of errors; to reexamine; to review; to look over with care for correction; as, to revise a writing; to revise a translation. To review, alter, and amend; as, to revise statutes; to revise an agreement; to revise a dictionary

Should the birth certificate then not be revised to correct the error?

IrishTonyO

Links234 wrote: »

You can't say you are for equal rights and then oppose people getting those rights!

I don't see how it is equal rights, I am not allowed to change my birth cert if for any reason I felt inside I was not Irish, not Caucasian. If you believe Lyndia should be allowed change her birth cert I assume you also believe that people who fell they are not Irish can change theirs as well? People whose mother remarried another man can change their birth cert to reflect this, do you?

Rev Hellfire

wonderfulname wrote: »

Should the birth certificate then not be revised to correct the error?

No since this revision happened subsequent to their birth.

IrishTonyO

wonderfulname wrote: »

Revised: To look at again for the detection of errors; to reexamine; to review; to look over with care for correction; as, to revise a writing; to revise a translation. To review, alter, and amend; as, to revise statutes; to revise an agreement; to revise a dictionary

Should the birth certificate then not be revised to correct the error?

Since you want to use word defintions then the defintion of male is :- Of, relating to, or designating the sex that has organs to produce spermatozoa for fertilizing ova. Which is correct on Lynda's birth cert

28064212

Links234 wrote: »

You can't say you are for equal rights and then oppose people getting those rights!

Equal - Having the same privileges, status, or rights; Being the same for all members of a group. No-one has said transgendered people should have less rights, only that they shouldn't have more

wonderfulname wrote: »

Revised: To look at again for the detection of errors; to reexamine; to review; to look over with care for correction; as, to revise a writing; to revise a translation. To review, alter, and amend; as, to revise statutes; to revise an agreement; to revise a dictionary

Should the birth certificate then not be revised to correct the error?

Is it an error? If I look at a birth cert, my take is that the gender is referring to the physical attribute of the baby at that point in time

Links234

IrishTonyO wrote: »

I notice you don't answer the questions about her children or her marriage above. If the birth cert is changed that means Denis never existed and a result neither do his children or his marriage.

And I'm not going to answer. It's a straw man, and a completely silly one at that. What's there to answer?

IrishTonyO wrote: »

As a gay Caucasian male, if inside I feel like I am really African American do you think I should be able to change my birth cert?

IrishTonyO wrote: »

I don't see how it is equal rights, I am not allowed to change my birth cert if for any reason I felt inside I was not Irish, not Caucasian. If you believe Lyndia should be allowed change her birth cert I assume you also believe that people who fell they are not Irish can change theirs as well? People whose mother remarried another man can change their birth cert to reflect this, do you?

For transgender people, most EU countries will now legally recognize their genders, and from a medical standpoint it is considered that the gender they identify as is in fact their true gender and their body is in error. A lot of people have come to understand that transsexuality is a very real thing. It's long established that psychological treatment does not cure someone of the condition, and that correction of the body is in the best interests of the person.

So when you're making a comparison to someone who's Caucasian feeling that they're really African, or that they're not Irish, I can't help but take that as a slight against transgender identities, as if you're saying to me that transgendered people are just being silly and deluded thinking they're something they're not. And I really hope that's not the case.

wonderfulname

28064212 wrote: »

Equal - Having the same privileges, status, or rights; Being the same for all members of a group. No-one has said transgendered people should have less rights, only that they shouldn't have more

Stop viewing them as transgendered for a second, just view them as a normal man or woman whos birth certificate says they are the opposite sex, it is an equal right that it should be ammended.

28064212 wrote: »

Is it an error? If I look at a birth cert, my take is that the gender is referring to the physical attribute of the baby at that point in time

Yes it is, an error which it was impossible not to make, but an error none-the-less. Do you really need to look in your pants to know what sex you are? why is that i wonder?

wonderfulname

IrishTonyO wrote: »

Since you want to use word defintions then the defintion of male is :- Of, relating to, or designating the sex that has organs to produce spermatozoa for fertilizing ova. Which is correct on Lynda's birth cert

From a modern medical dictionary:

Male: The traditional definition of male was "an individual of the sex that produces sperm" (or some such). However, things are not so simple today. Male can be defined by physical appearance, by chromosome constitution (see Male chromosome complement), or by gender identification.

IrishTonyO

Links234 wrote: »

And I'm not going to answer. It's a straw man, and a completely silly one at that. What's there to answer?




For transgender people, most EU countries will now legally recognize their genders, and from a medical standpoint it is considered that the gender they identify as is in fact their true gender and their body is in error. A lot of people have come to understand that transsexuality is a very real thing. It's long established that psychological treatment does not cure someone of the condition, and that correction of the body is in the best interests of the person.

So when you're making a comparison to someone who's Caucasian feeling that they're really African, or that they're not Irish, I can't help but take that as a slight against transgender identities, as if you're saying to me that transgendered people are just being silly and deluded thinking they're something they're not. And I really hope that's not the case.

Am giving up trying to debate with you as you do not answer any of my questions and then you try to put words in my mouth that I have not said. Just a final word I do not have the right to change my birth cert or indeed no one else has the right to change their birth cert, so saying it is equal rights is utter rubbish, it is more rights than anyone else has, and there is nothing equal about that.

Links234

28064212 wrote: »

Equal - Having the same privileges, status, or rights; Being the same for all members of a group. No-one has said transgendered people should have less rights, only that they shouldn't have more

That's the same kind of twisted logic that says denying same sex couples marriage isn't against their rights, because they have the same rights as heterosexual people, and that a straight man can't marry another straight man, so they all have the same rights. When the reality of it is, the right to have your partnership with someone you love is denied to a whole class of people.

Cisgendered people have their genders recognised by the state, transgendered people don't.