Dr Lydia Foy new case.

MadsL

Dr Lydia Foy has launched another legal challenge to actually get her hands on her reissued birth certifcate showing her to legally be a woman fully five years after winning her legal case proving her right to have the certificate altered.

Five years after winning her case, what an insult. What exactly is the State's problem here other than some kind of bizarre willingness to spend thousands of taxpayers money defending the indefensible?

Story here.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/transgender-dentist-starts-new-bid-for-birth-cert-29099253.html#sthash.vHnDaVax.dpuf

Rothmans

So the result of the first case was basically 'yes we're violating your human rights, but we couldn't be bothered doing anything to rectify that'?

MadsL

State dropped the appeal against the determination that they were violating her human rights. She's asked for her birth cert to be changed but they have so far not issued the changed cert.

Refusal through inaction. The State throwing a passive aggressive huff basically.

CollardGreens

She's asked for her birth cert to be changed but they have so far not issued the changed cert.

She should write Obama on how to do that, he's a pro!

drunkmonkey

There's nothing wrong with the state spending money protecting the definition of a woman.
He should not be issued with a birth cert of an Irish woman he is not one. How it's against his human rights is beyond me.

MadsL

drunkmonkey wrote: »

There's nothing wrong with the state spending money protecting the definition of a woman.
He should not be issued with a birth cert of an Irish woman he is not one. How it's against his human rights is beyond me.

Fortunately it is not up to you. Why does a "definition" need protecting anyway?

You can get your birth cert reissued with your current sex in Texas ffs.

MadsL

CollardGreens wrote: »

She should write Obama on how to do that, he's a pro!

Leave the Limbaugh Lemonade alone will ya..

token101

It's completely ridiculous that she won the case yet still hasn't been given what she won but I don't really see how it's her right to have a legal document altered to be honest. I know the EU recognises it, etc, but what exactly is the reason behind it? She was born a man? So the document is correct at the time of writing?

CollardGreens

So if a man has one of these change things, do they cut off his penis? If so, isn't that his pleasure tool gone? Do they save it in a jar like they did my brothers tonsils?

orestes

drunkmonkey wrote: »

There's nothing wrong with the state spending money protecting the definition of a woman.
He should not be issued with a birth cert of an Irish woman he is not one. How it's against his human rights is beyond me.

Until pretty recently the states definition of a woman was either "property" or "free slave labour", so I think I'll go with the Europeans on this one. You know, the ones who wrote that whacky Convention of Human Rights thingy with it's quirky little ideas about people being equal and allowed to be free to be themselves and all that.

juice1304

They don't cut it off they split it down the middle and make it look like lady bits.
I don't see why they care so much if all her other documents say she is a lady then what difference dose it make. I would imagine it is some bigoted tard in an office who dose'nt agree with her so is making trouble. Having the document changed is'nt going to affect anyone else or make any difference and if it will make her happy then who cares. :rolleyes:

im invisible

CollardGreens wrote: »

So if a man has one of these change things, do they cut off his penis? If so, isn't that his pleasure tool gone? Do they save it in a jar like they did my brothers tonsils?

saw a documentary on it once, i'd file it under 'what has been seen, cannot be unseen'...
Sometimes you're better off not knowing

Jimoslimos

MadsL wrote: »

Fortunately it is not up to you. Why does a "definition" need protecting anyway?

You can get your birth cert reissued with your current sex in Texas ffs.

Kind of a misnomer to call it a 'birth cert' then

MadsL

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Kind of a misnomer to call it a 'birth cert' then

Well it is a document asserting your legal identity, don't you think it should have your current sex correctly stated?

Jimoslimos

MadsL wrote: »

Well it is a document asserting your legal identity, don't you think it should have your current sex correctly stated?

No, it is a record of your birth. Should it be updated if your parents change professions?

I do however think her actual gender (male) should only be of concern to her partner and doctor - not any prospective employers. If her passport states F, then that should be acceptable to everyone else.

I don't agree with altering correct historical documents.


Running out of steam on the other thread eh? Keep on tr..tr..tr..trucking MadsL!;)

MadsL

Jimoslimos wrote: »

No, it is a record of your birth. Should it be updated if your parents change professions?

Should it be updated if your presumptive father turns out to not be your biological dad?

I do however think her actual gender (male) should only be of concern to her partner and doctor - not any prospective employers. If her passport states F, then that should be acceptable to everyone else.

How do you get a passport? What documents are provided?

I don't agree with altering correct historical documents.

It's not the Gettysburgh Address, just a proof of identity - get a grip.

Running out of steam on the other thread eh? Keep on tr..tr..tr..trucking MadsL!;)

It is a discussion board I believe, this issue came up in the other thread -better to separate them, to y'know discuss things. But thanks for the sly dig.

juice1304

Jimoslimos wrote: »

No, it is a record of your birth. Should it be updated if your parents change professions?

I do however think her actual gender (male) should only be of concern to her partner and doctor - not any prospective employers. If her passport states F, then that should be acceptable to everyone else.

I don't agree with altering correct historical documents.


Running out of steam on the other thread eh? Keep on tr..tr..tr..trucking MadsL!;)

What is your reasoning for this? How will it impact on your life or make any difference to anyone else other then her?

Cereal Number

live and let live

drunkmonkey

MadsL wrote: »

Well it is a document asserting your legal identity, don't you think it should have your current sex correctly stated?

He was born a man therefore he is a man. He should not be allowed in women's changing rooms or toilets, he should also not be allowed to compete in competitions or sports as a woman.
His sex is correct on his birth cert unless the doctor or midwife made a mistake his cert should never be altered. He should also not be allowed refer to himself as a girl in his job. I would be horrified to walk into trans dentist without knowing. If I go to Dr Lydia I don't expect to find Dr Larrry in a skirt.

mod: banned.

Jimoslimos

juice1304 wrote: »

What is your reasoning for this? How will it impact on your life or make any difference to anyone else other then her?

Overall, I like epidemiology and population health statistics. I don't like anything that might confound the data, like women getting prostate cancer!

MadsL

drunkmonkey wrote: »

He was born a man therefore he is a man.

Not according to the courts.

He should not be allowed in women's changing rooms or toilets,

I think you are mixing up gender and sexuality.

he should also not be allowed to compete in competitions or sports as a woman.

I see. Because?

His sex is correct on his birth cert unless the doctor or midwife made a mistake his cert should never be altered.

Why? What would be the purpose of that?

He should also not be allowed refer to himself as a girl in his job. I would be horrified to walk into trans dentist without knowing.

In case you catch the ghey?

If I go to Dr Lydia I don't expect to find Dr Larrry in a skirt.

Wtf difference does your dentists gender make?

MadsL

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Overall, I like epidemiology and population health statistics. I don't like anything that might confound the data, like women getting prostate cancer!

That it?! Your only objection of how it would impact you...wasn't expecting a statistic answer. How very obscure.

Jimoslimos

MadsL wrote: »

Should it be updated if your presumptive father turns out to not be your biological dad?

Something similar was discussed here previously, I would be broadly in favour of paternity tests (and chuck in a chromosome test as well to be sure) at the time of birth

MadsL wrote: »

How do you get a passport? What documents are provided?

If she needs a Female birth cert to have a passport issued as Female then that is a problem. A suitable compromise would be to have a legal document to supplement the birth cert stating the change, which would be acceptable for issuing passports, the original would remain with the correct biological sex.

drunkmonkey

Ghey eh?

Would he be straight if it said girl on his birth cert? He could then legally get married I presume.
Can of worms up the Dr's skirt me thinks.

MadsL

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Ghey eh?

Would he be straight if it said girl on his birth cert? He could then legally get married I presume.
Can of worms up the Dr's skirt me thinks.

Have you absolutely no clue about the difference between sexual orientation and gender? Or are you still in school and just immature about it?

She can legally marry now.

MadsL

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Something similar was discussed here previously, I would be broadly in favour of paternity tests (and chuck in a chromosome test as well to be sure) at the time of birth

That's not really answering the question I asked now is it. Do you think a post-birt test should be allowed to remove a father from a birth cert?

If she needs a Female birth cert to have a passport issued as Female then that is a problem. A suitable compromise would be to have a legal document to supplement the birth cert stating the change, which would be acceptable for issuing passports, the original would remain with the correct biological sex.

Would a corrected long form noting the change and a corrected short form showing just F be acceptable to you?

Peregrinus

A birth certificate is not a proof of identity. It's a record of a historical event - a record of the historical fact that a person with these characteristics and this ancestry who was given this name was born on this date at this place. There is nothing in the birth certificate to prove that the birth recorded in it was the birth of the person who now waves it around.

The argument for altering the birth certificate is that it was always wrong. Although it recorded Dr Foy as "male" on the basis of the configuration of the genitals, which is mostly a reliable indicator, Dr Foy was in fact psychosexually female but suffering from gender dysphoria, but this only became apparent as her true gender identity asserted itself.

The opposing argument is that gender is not primarily a matter of psychological self-identification, but of genes and chromosomes. On this view Dr Foy was (and is) male, albeit she has now had cosmetic surgery so that her external genitalia resemble female genitalia.

Or, in short, this depends on what you think "gender" means.

But it's relevant that the state now accepts her as female. The state therefore cannot rely on the argument that gender is determined genetically and chromosomally, so at least one ground for defending the accuracy of the birth record is not available to them.

The state could of course still argue that Dr Foy has changed sex; that she was male when born and only became female at a later date, and that the birth record is therefore correct and to alter it now would be to falsify it.

drunkmonkey

How can he legally marry another bloke in Ireland seen as his birth cert says he's a guy. Seems bizzare.

MadsL

Peregrinus wrote: »

But it's relevant that the state now accepts her as female. The state therefore cannot rely on the argument that gender is determined genetically and chromosomally, so at least one ground for defending the accuracy of the birth record is not available to them.

The state could of course still argue that Dr Foy has changed sex; that she was male when born and only became female at a later date, and that the birth record is therefore correct and to alter it now would be to falsify it.

But that would impinge on her human right to self determination of her gender identity which the ECHR has upheld.

MadsL

drunkmonkey wrote: »

How can he legally marry another bloke in Ireland seen as his birth cert says he's a guy. Seems bizzare.

Where did I restrict that to Ireland?

MadsL

drunkmonkey wrote: »

How can she be prevented from legally marrying a bloke in Ireland as the State has conceded that Dr Foy is legally female

FYP

drunkmonkey

MadsL wrote: »

Where did I restrict that to Ireland?

I made a presumption. So he can't legally get married in Ireland then?

juice1304

drunkmonkey wrote: »

How can he legally marry another bloke in Ireland seen as his birth cert says he's a guy. Seems bizzare.

Your level of ignorance seems bizarre.:rolleyes:

IceFjoem

MadsL wrote: »

Should it be updated if your presumptive father turns out to not be your biological dad?

No, that's not the same thing at all. If the information on the birth cert was incorrect in the first place then it should absolutely be changed.

I agree with Juice that we should live and let live, but as far as I can see, the birth cert in this case was correct in stating that Dr. Lydia was born male.

To argue that she wasn't born male seems beyond ridiculous to me.

MadsL

drunkmonkey wrote: »

I made a presumption. So he can't legally get married in Ireland then?

As far as I am aware the law has never been tested, but if the State says 'yes we concede you are female' in a court of law, how would they prevent the marriage.

By the way your continual use of he is absurd, the State of Ireland recognises the good Doctor as female - could you not at least be polite to her wishes?

MadsL

IceFjoem wrote: »

No, that's not the same thing at all. If the information on the birth cert was incorrect in the first place then it should absolutely be changed.

I agree with Juice that we should live and let live, but as far as I can see, the birth cert in this case was correct in stating that Dr. Lydia was born male.

To argue that she wasn't born male seems beyond ridiculous to me.

So the sex organs you have at birth are the definitive determination of gender for your entire lifetime. What is the purpose of such draconian measures? Whose benefit does it serve?

drunkmonkey

MadsL wrote: »

FYP

He was born a guy, he looks like a guy. It says male on his birth cert. I can't refer to him as she as it makes no sense. A she is a she and he sure as hell isn't one regardless of what the EU have said.

I want women to be 100% women with no exception. If that makes me a bigot well so be it.

Peregrinus

MadsL wrote: »

But that would impinge on her human right to self determination of her gender identity which the ECHR has upheld.

Not necessarily. Has the ECHR held that she has the right to the gender identity of her choice now, or that she has the right to determine,, long after the event, that she was female when she was born? Is she guaranteed the right to change her gender idenity, or to be treated as if she had always belonged to the gender with which she now identifies?

The latter would be problematic. It would mean, for instance, that her marriage (1977-1991) was completely void. This presumably is not an outcome that Foy wants. Similarly, if she is to be treated as always having been female, she can't properly be recorded as the father of her two children, and their birth certs ought to be adjusted also, which again is probably not what anyone wants.

So it seems to me that what Foy has been guaranteed is the right to change her sex to align it with her mature gender identity. Which means that her birth certificate, which states the position when she was born, not the position today, is correct as it stands.

On edit: I think Jimoslimos is on to something back in post #23. It's much easier to defend a record stating that Dr Foy was male when she was born than it is to defend the use of the record to establish Dr Foy's gender today.

By way of analogy, a birth cert establishes that someone was born on a given date, but it doesn't establish that they are now alive. When someone dies, we don't cancel their birth certificate, or annotate it to show that they are dead; we create a separate record of that later event. And it seems to me the answer here is to create a record of Dr. Foy's change of gender, which she can then rely on to obtain passports, driving licences, etc showing her as female, to allow her to marry a male should she wish to do so, etc, etc. And this wouldn't cast any doubt over the authenticity or validity of her previous life, and previous relationships, as a male.

Sadly, it won't persuade the drunkmonkeys of this world. But probably nothing will.

MadsL

drunkmonkey wrote: »

He was born a guy, he looks like a guy. It says male on his birth cert. I can't refer to him as she as it makes no sense. A she is a she and he sure as hell isn't one regardless of what the EU have said.

It makes no sense to you. I hope your world gets bigger sometime.

I want women to be 100% women with no exception. If that makes me a bigot well so be it.

Yeah, cus look how this affects you. Oh, wait it doesn't.

Jimoslimos

MadsL wrote: »

So the sex organs you have at birth are the definitive determination of gender for your entire lifetime. What is the purpose of such draconian measures? Whose benefit does it serve?

You do realise that argument can be used the other way against you. Does merely altering your external genitalia and wearing female attire a woman make?

Actually I think it is extremely wrong to reduce the female sex to a fake vagina, boobs and oestrogen injections.

IceFjoem

MadsL wrote: »

So the sex organs you have at birth are the definitive determination of gender for your entire lifetime. What is the purpose of such draconian measures? Whose benefit does it serve?

That's something I'm yet to fully form an opinion on tbh, but as a society we need to be able to define things.

I personally think that ascribing the word male or female to someone is doing nothing more than describing their genitalia.

MadsL

IceFjoem wrote: »

That's something I'm yet to fully form an opinion on tbh, but as a society we need to be able to define things.

I personally think that ascribing the word male or female to someone is doing nothing more than describing their genitalia.

Then you are f*cked when it comes to hermaphrodites.

Jimoslimos

MadsL wrote: »

Would a corrected long form noting the change and a corrected short form showing just F be acceptable to you?

No. They shouldn't be changed, Full stop. A boy was born, it was recorded properly. No amount of surgery or hormones later in life will change that basic fact..

A supplementary legal document stating the change in how the individual wishes to be perceived should be acceptable.

MadsL

Jimoslimos wrote: »

No. They shouldn't be changed, Full stop. A boy was born, it was recorded properly. No amount of surgery or hormones later in life will change that basic fact..

A supplementary legal document stating the change in how the individual wishes to be perceived should be acceptable.

So you should legally "out" them for the rest of thier lives. Why would that be fair or just?

IceFjoem

MadsL wrote: »

So you should legally "out" them for the rest of thier lives. Why would that be fair or just?

Whether it's fair or just is irrelevant, it is a historical fact.

token101

juice1304 wrote: »

What is your reasoning for this? How will it impact on your life or make any difference to anyone else other then her?

She wasn't born a woman, that's just a fact. She wants to go and have a sex change, well that's fine it's her life she can do whatever she likes. But turning around and wanting legal documents to be changed retrospectively when there's absolutely no factual basis is a ridiculous prospect. If she wants to call herself female now, fine let her have her passport say that, but anything else is just pandering, simple as.

MadsL

IceFjoem wrote: »

Whether it's fair or just is irrelevant, it is a historical fact.

For whose benefit? What harm is done to anyone by changing it. The harm by not changing it is apparent.

Pherekydes

drunkmonkey wrote: »

There's nothing wrong with the state spending money protecting the definition of a woman.
He should not be issued with a birth cert of an Irish woman he is not one. How it's against his human rights is beyond me.

To refer to a transgendered person by their previous gender is infantile.

token101

MadsL wrote: »

For whose benefit? What harm is done to anyone by changing it. The harm by not changing it is apparent.

She wants history altered to pander to her wishes. Can I have my birth date altered if I feel younger? No. It's a ridiculous prospect.

MadsL

token101 wrote: »

She wasn't born a woman, that's just a fact. She wants to go and have a sex change, well that's fine it's her life she can do whatever she likes. But turning around and wanting legal documents to be changed retrospectively when there's absolutely no factual basis is a ridiculous prospect. If she wants to call herself female now, fine let her have her passport say that, but anything else is just pandering, simple as.

Christine Goodwin v. UK wrote:

“the very essence of the [European] Convention is respect for human dignity and human freedom. Under Article 8 of the Convention in particular, where the notion of personal autonomy is an important principle underlying the interpretation of its guarantees, protection is given to the personal sphere of each individual, including the right to establish details of their identity as individual human beings”. It concluded that “the unsatisfactory situation in which post-operative transsexuals live in an intermediate zone as not quite one gender or the other is no longer sustainable”.

Article 8 – Right to respect for private and family life
1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others

Why is your gender necessarily recorded "correctly" at birth and unchangeable anything to do with national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others???

Who is it hurting other than the subject themselves by not being allowed to do it?

MadsL

token101 wrote: »

She wants history altered to pander to her wishes. Can I have my birth date altered if I feel younger? No. It's a ridiculous prospect.

It's not history, it is one word of a document so she doesn't need to explain everytime someone asks for a birth cert. We are not rewriting the Magna Carta ffs.

What's the harm?