Dr Lydia Foy new case.

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?

Lyaiera

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.

That's the thing, it is incorrect and was based on insufficient but the best available information. She is a transgender woman. She always was a transgender woman. She figured that out decades ago and tried to get the state to change their faulty information but they've refused and deferred when told they can't refuse.

MadsL

Lyaiera wrote: »

That's the thing, it is incorrect and was based on insufficient but the best available information. She is a transgender woman. She always was a transgender woman. She figured that out decades ago and tried to get the state to change their faulty information but they've refused and deferred when told they can't refuse.

Ireland is now the only state in the EU that has no legislation regarding this.

Jimoslimos

MadsL wrote: »

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

Not saying that babies aren't born with both female and male sexual organs but it is extremely rare. In the context of a discussion about transgendered people is irrelevant and doesn't help your argument.

Being born with both or ambiguous genitalia at birth is not the same as choosing to change well-defined and functioning ones as an adult

TwoShedsJackson

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.

Can you have surgery to alter your birth date first?

MadsL

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Not saying that babies aren't born with both female and male sexual organs but it is extremely rare. In the context of a discussion about transgendered people is irrelevant and doesn't help your argument.

Being born with both or ambiguous genitalia at birth is not the same as choosing to change well-defined and functioning ones as an adult

So what do you put on the birthcert? TBC? Or do you change it later when boy identifies as girl.

Would you allow such a change under those circumstances?

Peregrinus

MadsL wrote: »

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

It's not true. It's a record of a historical event, and it's being falsified to show the event as something other than it in fact was. Dr Foy wasn't born female; she changed her sex. Truth matters. That's why historical records are signficant in the first place.

I'm entirely comfortable with her changing her sex to align with her mature gender identity, as I said, and I support her in doing so, and I think as a society we are obliged to recognise and accept her choice. But I'm uncomfortable with altering the historical record to make it appear as if the events of history unfolded differently from the way they in fact unfolded. To do that is to deny the reality of Dr Foy's choice. It's also to deny the reality, and the nature, of the relationships that other people had with Dr Foy as a man - her wife, her children.

MadsL

Peregrinus wrote: »

It's not true. It's a record of a historical event, and it's being falsified to show the event as something other than it in fact was. Dr Foy wasn't born female; she changed her sex. Truth matters. That's why historical records are signficant in the first place.

Dr Foys truth is that she was born into the wrongly equipped physical body, and now has an absurd situation of being shown as female on a passport but male on the BC.
If truth matters - what does it matter to anyone other than the subject of the documents? What does aryone else care?? 26 countries in hthe EU now do this - how long do you think Ireland can continue to be this fecking rude???

I'm entirely comfortable with her changing her sex to align with her mature gender identity, as I said, and I support her in doing so, and I think as a society we are obliged to recognise and accept her choice. But I'm uncomfortable with altering the historical record to make it appear as if the events of history unfolded differently from the way they in fact unfolded. To do that is to deny the reality of Dr Foy's choice.

Then stick a note somewhere in the Office of Public Records in a card index file to make people like you 'comfortable' that someone 'knows'. But allow this woman the dignity of not having to explain herself everytime she uses her BC. And as a nation, admit that the Civil Registration Act, 2004 is incompatible with the European Convention and redraft it to allow these people to marry with dignity.

It's also to deny the reality, and the nature, of the relationships that other people had with Dr Foy as a man - her wife, her children.

Nonsense. How do those relationships get "denied", they existed, exist and will continue to exist without some label on them.

IceFjoem

Lyaiera wrote: »

That's the thing, it is incorrect and was based on insufficient but the best available information. She is a transgender woman. She always was a transgender woman. She figured that out decades ago and tried to get the state to change their faulty information but they've refused and deferred when told they can't refuse.

As far as I'm concerned the indication of male or female on a birth certificate denotes the type of genitals you have at birth.

For her birth certificate to say female on it would not only imply, but unequivocally state that she was born with a vagina, which is of course untrue.

Lyaiera

IceFjoem wrote: »

As far as I'm concerned the indication of male or female on a birth certificate denotes the type of genitals you have at birth.

For her birth certificate to say female on it would not only imply, but unequivocally state that she was born with a vagina, which is of course untrue.

If the test was "Has vagina" you'd be correct.

MadsL

IceFjoem wrote: »

As far as I'm concerned the indication of male or female on a birth certificate denotes the type of genitals you have at birth.

For her birth certificate to say female on it would not only imply, but unequivocally state that she was born with a vagina, which is of course untrue.

Would someone not be recorded a woman if they were born with no vagina, nor legs etc??

Last time I checked it said SEX not VAGINA PRESENT on the BC.