Dr Lydia Foy new case.

Jimoslimos

MadsL wrote: »

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?

I'm not sure why you think this helps your argument, it doesn't. Often the choice of one or another is made for social reasons - an ambiguous gender isn't desirable. Should both be recorded in the case of true hermaphrodites? Probably. But the birth cert isn't wholly incorrect (but not fully correct) in only ticking one since both male and female genitalia were present at birth. In any case the numbers are extremely small in relation to the numbers of transgendered individuals.

A birth cert is merely a record of what genitals were present at birth. Not how someone 'identified' themselves as, should the box remain blank until the child makes a decision (to be tipp-exed out if they change their mind)? There is no justification here for retrospectively falsifying medical records.

Jimoslimos

Lyaiera wrote: »

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

Eh? That's generally how it is determined for babies. Surprisingly it has proven difficult to date to carry out psychological assessments of gender identity in newborns.

Lyaiera

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Eh? That's generally how it is determined for babies. Surprisingly it has proven difficult to date to carry out psychological assessments of gender identity in newborns.

So if they want the marker to be accurate on the birth cert they need to change it to "V" or "P." It's no-one's fault that they're getting it wrong at the moment, but given that it is wrong they need to correct it.

Peregrinus

MadsL wrote: »

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.

Why is that absurd? Dr Foy’s life, like all our lives, has been a journey, and her particular journey involves a transition from living as male to living as female. Are we supposed to shut up about this? Is we supposed to be quiet and not embarrass people by affirming that, yes, this happened? Are we supposed to doctor the record retrospectively to make it look as though Dr Foy grew up like any other baby girl? ‘Cause that’s not what happened. And trying to conceal the truth of these things is not a healthy way of dealing with them.

MadsL wrote: »

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.

The problem, I think, is not that her birth certificate shows her gender of origin; it’s that she’s required and/or expected to use her birth certificate to establish her gender today. And imposing that on people involves a denial of the possibility or reality of choosing to change your gender change.

In other words, the honest thing to do here is not to change birth certificates, but to change the way birth certificates are used.

MadsL wrote: »

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

Just like gay relationships exist without the label of “marriage” on them? :rolleyes:

The whole point about relationships is that more than one person has an investment, an interest, in them. For a long time, Dr Foy related to an awful lot of people as male, some of them in a very fundamental and intimate way. We honour this reality by acknowledging that Dr Foy lived first as a male, and later as a female, and that this involved a gender change. We do not honour it by altering the records to conceal the fact that Dr Foy ever had any male identity.

Dr Foy is a woman, but she is also the father of two daughters, and she was a husband. That's a complex and unusual reality, but that doesn't make it any less real. Altering the records to make it appear as if Dr Foy fits neatly into conventional expections of how female lives unfold isn't the right way to deal with this.

MadsL

Jimoslimos wrote: »

I'm not sure why you think this helps your argument, it doesn't. Often the choice of one or another is made for social reasons - an ambiguous gender isn't desirable.

By whom?

Should both be recorded in the case of true hermaphrodites? Probably. But the birth cert isn't wholly incorrect (but not fully correct) in only ticking one since both male and female genitalia were present at birth. In any case the numbers are extremely small in relation to the numbers of transgendered individuals.

Wut? Birth Certs are universal, what does the rarity matter?

A birth cert is merely a record of what genitals were present at birth.

No, it f*cking isn't. You go to an office and recprd the birth. The Registrar does not check the baby's dangly or other wise bits. You don't even need the baby with you iirc.

Not how someone 'identified' themselves as, should the box remain blank until the child makes a decision (to be tipp-exed out if they change their mind)?

Why would that be be bad?

There is no justification here for retrospectively falsifying medical records.

It is not, nor ever has been a medical record.

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Eh? That's generally how it is determined for babies.

Actually the parents decide. See above.

Surprisingly it has proven difficult to date to carry out psychological assessments of gender identity in newborns.

Never heard of chromosomes?

In an issue of his regular Viewpoint in January 2009, Human Rights Commissioner Hammarberg again referred specifically to the Foy case before going on to make a general call for legal recognition of transgender persons. He said: “There is no excuse for not immediately granting this community their full and unconditional human rights”.

token101

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

Can you have surgery to alter your birth date first?

You can have plastic surgery to make you look and feel younger. Isn't that essentially the same thing? If you can surgically alter yourself to look 21 and you have the same feeling as someone who's 21, what's stopping anyone saying you're not 21? Just history really isn't it? Surgery doesn't reverse the ageing process, but why let facts get in the way of pleasing people.

token101

MadsL wrote: »

In an issue of his regular Viewpoint in January 2009, Human Rights Commissioner Hammarberg again referred specifically to the Foy case before going on to make a general call for legal recognition of transgender persons. He said: “There is no excuse for not immediately granting this community their full and unconditional human rights”.

They can have legal recognition. They just can't change history that's all.

MadsL

Peregrinus wrote: »

Just like gay relationships exist without the label of “marriage” on them? :rolleyes:

Absolutely NOT what I said :mad: , if you are going to put words in my mouth then you are not bothering trying to have an honest debate.

The fact is 26 countries in the EU accept this without fuss. Ireland as ever has to be "difficult" and ignore what everyone else is doing to assure people their human rights - at the risk of mentioning the X case - the f*cking X case is a prime example of head in the sand human rights ignored attitude.

Now - it is late here, G'night.

Lyaiera

token101 wrote: »

They can have legal recognition. They just can't change history that's all.

Say they got your birth date wrong. Let's use a wild example for this. Say they made you 30 years older than you were. Someone with dyslexia filled in your birth cert. Now let's say you're in a public service position. Should you be forced to retire at age 35 because of that person's mistake?

MadsL

token101 wrote: »

They can have legal recognition. They just can't change history that's all.

It is one word, and you haven't given a single reason why this "history" is so important to set in unchangeable stone.

Any ideas?

God, perhaps?
Fear?
Prejudice?


What are the actual reasons for holding out on this?

Jimoslimos

MadsL wrote: »

Never heard of chromosomes?

Yep, they haven't changed. In Dr. Lydia Foy's case they'd still be XY. Male.

MadsL

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Yep, they haven't changed. In Dr. Lydia Foy's case they'd still be XY. Male.

I meant in proof in absence of Vag. rather than a psych evaluation.

and what? You still haven't give any reasons for NOT changing the birth cert, except for some nonsense about "History".

Dravokivich

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.

FÚCK TEXAS

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?

Draconian? You're having a laugh surely. By what other measures should sex be quantified at birth? This is nothing but over the top reactionary bullshít. The only people that would suppress her human rights are those who look at the birth cert which stated born as male, notice she looks remarkably female now and judge against her based on that.

token101

Lyaiera wrote: »

Say they got your birth date wrong. Let's use a wild example for this. Say they made you 30 years older than you were. Someone with dyslexia filled in your birth cert. Now let's say you're in a public service position. Should you be forced to retire at age 35 because of that person's mistake?

:pac:

In this ****ing ridiculous scenario there would be a factual basis for me wanting a historical change.

MadsL wrote: »

It is one word, and you haven't given a single reason why this "history" is so important to set in unchangeable stone.

Any ideas?

God, perhaps?
Fear?
Prejudice?

What are the actual reasons for holding out on this?

None of the above. Just common sense, that's all. You can't retrospectively change any legal documents. Explain to me why I can't have my age altered in the same way and maybe it will all become clear to me.

MadsL

Dravokivich wrote: »

FÚCK TEXAS

As a neighbour, I concur. An example of just how backward a position Ireland has put itself in.

Draconian? You're having a laugh surely. By what other measures should sex be quantified at birth? This is nothing but over the top reactionary bullshít. The only people that would suppress her human rights are those who look at the birth cert which stated born as male, notice she looks remarkably female now and judge against her based on that.

She has a basic human right to marry. The EU State she was born in is the ONLY EU State that denies her the legal ability to do so.

Lyaiera

token101 wrote: »

:pac:

In this ****ing ridiculous scenario there would be a factual basis for me wanting a historical change.

If you mean factual in it's general logical, reasoned, scientific sense then there's also a factual basis that Dr. Foy's sex was incorrectly noted.

However if you mean factual in the close-minded, unreasoned sense, then yes, your point is correct.

token101

MadsL wrote: »

She has a basic human right to marry. The EU State she was born in is the ONLY EU State that denies her the legal ability to do so.

You haven't a clue what you're talking about.

MadsL

token101 wrote: »

Just common sense, that's all. You can't retrospectively change any legal documents. Explain to me why I can't have my age altered in the same way and maybe it will all become clear to me.

A marriage document is changed by a divorce is it not?

You cannot surgically alter your age, as has been shown to you.

So you basically cannot think of any reasons except some notion about "common sense". Will we just put you down for 'spite' then? Or....?

MadsL

token101 wrote: »

You haven't a clue what you're talking about.

Why on earth would marrying a man and a women be a "same-sex" marriage? Could you get any more insulting if you tried.

Dr Foy is legally a woman.

MadsL

Mr Justice McKechnie gave his judgment on 19 October 2007
He expressed great frustration at the failure of the Irish Government to take any action following his urgent plea in 2002. He said that on this issue, “Ireland as of now is very much isolated within the Member States of the Council of Europe ... [and] must be even further disconnected from mainstream thinking”.

He concluded that “by reason of the absence of any provision which would enable the acquired identity of Dr Foy to be legally recognised in this jurisdiction, the respondent State [Ireland] is in breach of its positive obligations under Article 8 of the Convention”. And he added for good measure that he would have found a breach of the right to marry under Article 12 of the Convention as well if that had been open to him.

As there was no remedy available under Irish law, he declared, pursuant to Section 5 (1) of the ECHR Act, 2003, that the relevant sections of the Civil Registration Act, 2004 were incompatible with the European Convention.

smash

Oh goody, another loaded thread about transgender people...

MadsL

smash wrote: »

Oh goody, another loaded thread about transgender people...

Off you go then, we won't keep you if you don't like it. Plenty of threads here ^^^^ and >>>>> and <<<< to look at.

Or start your own...

token101

MadsL wrote: »

A marriage document is changed by a divorce is it not?

It doesn't go back in history and say the marriage never happened though, so again that's another useless analogy.

MadsL wrote: »

You cannot surgically alter your age, as has been shown to you.

You can alter your age from an appearance point of view and you can feel younger. But you're right it doesn't change history, much like a sex change operation doesn't alter the fact that the person was once the opposite sex.

MadsL wrote: »

So you basically cannot think of any reasons except some notion about "common sense". Will we just put you down for 'spite' then? Or....?

Or what? That's the usual way people attempt to make society pander without any thought process on the matter, isn't it? Agree with us or you're a bigot. It's cheap really.

MadsL

token101 wrote: »

It doesn't go back in history and say the marriage never happened though, so again that's another useless analogy.

Then pop a record card in a dim recess of a card index saying that the birth cert was changed. Happy now? World still turning?

You can alter your age from an appearance point of view and you can feel younger. But you're right it doesn't change history, much like a sex change operation doesn't alter the fact that the person was once the opposite sex.

But are no longer, glad you are getting it now.

Or what? That's the usual way people attempt to make society pander without any thought process on the matter, isn't it? Agree with us or you're a bigot. It's cheap really.

Well you can' think of any reasons!! Name one reason for not changing it.

Jimoslimos

MadsL wrote: »

I meant in proof in absence of Vag. rather than a psych evaluation.

and what? You still haven't give any reasons for NOT changing the birth cert, except for some nonsense about "History".

Unless a clerical error was made at the time of recording, then no it shouldn't be changed.

Doctor or midwife delivers baby
"It's a beautiful baby boy/girl/turtle"

Mother takes child and that's the information that gets relayed when recording a birth. There'd be no point in taking it if it was subject to the whims of the child 18 years later.

There are rare cases of ambiguous genitalia/sexual organ development. These are completely different to a mature adult deciding to alter their current genitalia to fit a perceived identity.

MadsL

token101 wrote: »

make society pander without any thought process on the matter, isn't it?

You think the European Convention on Human Rights was drawn up with no thought? Are you having a giraffe?

token101

Lyaiera wrote: »

If you mean factual in it's general logical, reasoned, scientific sense then there's also a factual basis that Dr. Foy's sex was incorrectly noted.

However if you mean factual in the close-minded, unreasoned sense, then yes, your point is correct.

Scientific reasons, like chromosomes say? Or genitals? How do you suggest a gender evaluation of a baby then? If it's close minded to say that these should be the primary evaluations of a newborn, then I suppose that's me close minded then. It's not unreasoned to say that you can't just retrospectively alter documents that your historical identity is based on because you've changed now. That would be fairly reasonable to most people. Maybe put it to a referendum? See how parents feel about being their children referred to as an XX child and an XY child until they are old enough to decide?

MadsL

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Unless a clerical error was made at the time of recording, then no it shouldn't be changed..

WHY?

Give me one single good reason. I'll even let you use God.

Annasopra

Rothmans wrote: »

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'?

No

The result was yes they are violating her human rights

Remember that FF were appealing this for about 2/3 years and only dropped on insistence of the green party

Jimoslimos

MadsL wrote: »

WHY?

Give me one single good reason. I'll even let you use God.

Nah, I've got biology on my side. Even better