Dr Lydia Foy new case.

MadsL

token101 wrote: »

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?

Identity is changed by deed poll all the time. I could become Mr Pop Pop BeGosh tomorrow easily.

MadsL

Jimoslimos wrote: »

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

Is that your reason?

seamus

Jimoslimos wrote: »

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

Yes, but the discussion is legal, not biological. The law doesn't correlate to biology in a number of instances, so you would be in error to assume that a biological definition of sex is the legal benchmark.

For as long as the birth cert is used as a piece of identification by state authorities and not solely an historical document, then these kinds of changes will have to be allowed.

Are there any other kind of records kept at birth aside from the birth cert - hospital records, etc. You do have to go register each birth. Would it not make sense to use the birth registration as the historical benchmark, but the birth certificate is simply a printout, not an historical document. In this way you could easily incorporate an addendum to the birth record noting that the person's sex was later corrected to female, and a birth cert is then issued with the correct gender. In this way, the historical record remains intact (the birth registration), but the birth certificate shows the correct gender.

Everyone's happy then, right?

Jimoslimos

MadsL wrote: »

Identity is changed by deed poll all the time. I could become Mr Pop Pop BeGosh tomorrow easily.

Wouldn't change the fact that up until then you were Mr. MadsL, plus a record of the change is retained.

MadsL wrote: »

Is that your reason?

Yes, simple as.

As I said previously I have no truck with mature adults making decisions on how they live their lives or what gender they see themselves as.
Regardless of my views on what their true biological gender is I don't have a problem in referring to their chosen sex and treating them in that manner (addressing as sir/ma'am as is their choice). That's basic politeness and doesn't cost me anything.

Still doesn't change the fundamental biology they were born with. A lot more complex than a reshaped vaginal cavity and hormone injections.

MadsL

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Wouldn't change the fact that up until then you were Mr. MadsL, plus a record of the change is retained.

In my now famous dusty record card in the basement of the Public Office Office. I don't need to show anyone I was once Mr MadsL. The BC on the other hand shows Ms Foy's former sex quite clearly and the fact she has had surgury is no-ones concern.

Yes, simple as.

So explain to me how Ireland is different from all the other EU states, using biology.

As I said previously I have no truck with mature adults making decisions on how they live their lives or what gender they see themselves as.
Regardless of my views on what their true biological gender is I don't have a problem in referring to their chosen sex and treating them in that manner (addressing as sir/ma'am as is their choice). That's basic politeness and doesn't cost me anything.

Fair play.

Still doesn't change the fundamental biology they were born with. A lot more complex than a reshaped vaginal cavity and hormone injections.

Are you going to start talking about more of a women or less of a woman now? Will I then bring up hysterectomies? Really wanna do this?

padd b1975

seamus wrote: »

Yes, but the discussion is legal, not biological. The law doesn't correlate to biology in a number of instances, so you would be in error to assume that a biological definition of sex is the legal benchmark.

For as long as the birth cert is used as a piece of identification by state authorities and not solely an historical document, then these kinds of changes will have to be allowed.

Are there any other kind of records kept at birth aside from the birth cert - hospital records, etc. You do have to go register each birth. Would it not make sense to use the birth registration as the historical benchmark, but the birth certificate is simply a printout, not an historical document. In this way you could easily incorporate an addendum to the birth record noting that the person's sex was later corrected to female, and a birth cert is then issued with the correct gender. In this way, the historical record remains intact (the birth registration), but the birth certificate shows the correct gender.

Everyone's happy then, right?

Sounds great in theory, but I think its pretty safe to assume that he would try to fight the 'historical record' through the courts.

seamus

padd b1975 wrote: »

Sounds great in theory, but I think its pretty safe to assume that he would try to fight the 'historical record' through the courts.

Why is that safe to assume?

She's looking to be legally recognised as female. Which she can only do if her birth certificate is updated.

Dr Foy is not looking to have all record of her previous gender identity erased, just a simple freedom to identify herself as female and have that recognised by the state.

You've come to the conclusion that she's just some kind of troublemaking malcontent, even though you no evidence of that whatsoever.

token101

MadsL wrote: »

Identity is changed by deed poll all the time. I could become Mr Pop Pop BeGosh tomorrow easily.

You can. But you won't be able to walk into a court and tell them that you were never known as your current name.

MadsL wrote: »

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?

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

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

I am getting it. I've gotten from the start. You want people to be able to go back after a set period and alter history, and I've said it's ridiculous because you can't change history with any amount of surgery, which you agreed with when you said I couldn't change my birth date on my birth cert. This doctor wants to be a woman now, fine, put that on her passport, driving licence. But insisting that she has always been a woman is daft and is pandering.

seamus wrote: »

Yes, but the discussion is legal, not biological. The law doesn't correlate to biology in a number of instances, so you would be in error to assume that a biological definition of sex is the legal benchmark.

For as long as the birth cert is used as a piece of identification by state authorities and not solely an historical document, then these kinds of changes will have to be allowed.

Are there any other kind of records kept at birth aside from the birth cert - hospital records, etc. You do have to go register each birth. Would it not make sense to use the birth registration as the historical benchmark, but the birth certificate is simply a printout, not an historical document. In this way you could easily incorporate an addendum to the birth record noting that the person's sex was later corrected to female, and a birth cert is then issued with the correct gender. In this way, the historical record remains intact (the birth registration), but the birth certificate shows the correct gender.

Everyone's happy then, right?

As long as the state isn't telling us all to blatantly ignore history and just mindlessly conform or be called a bigot.

token101

seamus wrote: »

Why is that safe to assume?

She's looking to be legally recognised as female. Which she can only do if her birth certificate is updated.

Dr Foy is not looking to have all record of her previous gender identity erased, just a simple freedom to identify herself as female and have that recognised by the state.

You've come to the conclusion that she's just some kind of troublemaking malcontent, even though you no evidence of that whatsoever.

Well then there's the problem. Have some system where she can apply through the courts and have document issued which states she's had a sex change. Using her birth cert to do it is ridiculous, she wasn't born a female, regardless of all the "Who says" nonsense.

MadsL

token101 wrote: »

Well then there's the problem. Have some system where she can apply through the courts and have document issued which states she's had a sex change. Using her birth cert to do it is ridiculous, she wasn't born a female, regardless of all the "Who says" nonsense.

Should she also wear a distinguishing mark to let everyone else know her business as welll as those she hands the BC to? What the f is wrong with reissuing the birth cert. You cannot give a single reason why not.

Jimoslimos

seamus wrote: »

Yes, but the discussion is legal, not biological. The law doesn't correlate to biology in a number of instances, so you would be in error to assume that a biological definition of sex is the legal benchmark.

For as long as the birth cert is used as a piece of identification by state authorities and not solely an historical document, then these kinds of changes will have to be allowed.

Are there any other kind of records kept at birth aside from the birth cert - hospital records, etc. You do have to go register each birth. Would it not make sense to use the birth registration as the historical benchmark, but the birth certificate is simply a printout, not an historical document. In this way you could easily incorporate an addendum to the birth record noting that the person's sex was later corrected to female, and a birth cert is then issued with the correct gender. In this way, the historical record remains intact (the birth registration), but the birth certificate shows the correct gender.

Everyone's happy then, right?

Yes but the assignment of sex on the birth cert is always biologically based, i.e a visual examination of the genitals in most cases, pre-natal testing.

The point on the birth cert/birth reg is interesting although I still disagree. It is the most important document you will ever own and should always match the historical record. I have no problem with new documents (passports/driving licenses) being issued with the new gender. Birth and medical records should remain as are.

dr.bollocko

mod:
drunkmonkey banned.

For a start.

Transphobic ranting will earn you a long ban.

seamus

token101 wrote: »

Well then there's the problem. Have some system where she can apply through the courts and have document issued which states she's had a sex change. Using her birth cert to do it is ridiculous, she wasn't born a female, regardless of all the "Who says" nonsense.

So, that would be a document which is attached to what? Her birth cert? So why not just attach that document to the birth record and issue a clean birth cert?

A birth cert in itself is not actually an accurate historical document. Once a birth cert has been issued, it can be damaged or altered by the person who has it, so for historical purposes it's a good document but it's not a great document.

The state's birth record on the other hand is much better because it has far more integrity and security than a birth cert. Therefore if the concern is historical accuracy, once you don't alter the birth record, then you can reissue a corrected birth cert all you like.

Yes but the assignment of sex on the birth cert is always biologically based, i.e a visual examination of the genitals in most cases, pre-natal testing.

Indeed, but that's no reason why the assignment of sex can't later be changed even if the biology hasn't. Like I say, biology is not the be-all and end-all in law.

It is the most important document you will ever own and should always match the historical record.

Yep. And if the historical record states, "Born male, later reassigned female", shouldn't the birth cert show that?

I have no problem with new documents (passports/driving licenses) being issued with the new gender. Birth and medical records should remain as are.

Agreed. Which is why my solution doesn't alter these records.

MadsL

I'm going to bed. But will will leave with this thought. Much like the X case it is not a question of IF rather WHEN this will be implemented. In the meantime the rest of Europe is shaking its head at backwards Ireland and its f*cked up attitudes to human sexuality. Time to sort it.

Peregrinus

MadsL wrote: »

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

No, it isn't.

MadsL

Peregrinus wrote: »

No, it isn't.

It's validity is.

Slutmonkey57b

This whole thing is nonsense.

Someone wants to falsify the details on a birth certificate. Whether they want to falsify their gender, or their parents name, or place of birth, doesn't matter. The birth certificate is a factual historical record, and the only reason to change one is in case of a clerical error. Not a personal preference, or philosophical or other such argument.

By all means change your name by deed poll, or your current official documentation. Fundamentally, who cares what gender a person wants to be? I couldn't care less.

token101

seamus wrote: »

So, that would be a document which is attached to what? Her birth cert? So why not just attach that document to the birth record and issue a clean birth cert.

A birth in itself is not actually an accurate historical document. Once a birth cert has been issued, it can be damaged or altered by the person who has it, so for historical purposes it's a good document but it's not a great document.

The state's birth record on the other hand is much better because it has far more integrity and security than a birth cert. Therefore if the concern is historical accuracy, once you don't alter the birth record, then you can reissue a corrected birth cert all you like.

Calling it a birth cert when it doesn't accurately record her birth is daft. Just have some standalone document that verifies her identity and confirms she had a sex change. Can't be that difficult surely.

MadsL

seamus wrote: »

if the historical record states, "Born male, later reassigned female", shouldn't the birth cert show that? .

Why would it need to show the pre-reassigment status? Whose business is it?

padd b1975

seamus wrote: »

Why is that safe to assume?

She's looking to be legally recognised as female. Which she can only do if her birth certificate is updated.

Dr Foy is not looking to have all record of her previous gender identity erased, just a simple freedom to identify herself as female and have that recognised by the state.

You've come to the conclusion that she's just some kind of troublemaking malcontent, even though you no evidence of that whatsoever.

Sorry, should have been more clearer.

Its safe for me to assume.

The fact of the matter is that Dr. Foy is living as a woman and being recognised as such on a daily basis.

Obviously in matters of appearance, it is clearly a man trying to look like a woman through surgery, hormone pills, clothing make up etc. Despite what some 'card carrying victims' may like to think, everyday Ireland can be surprisingly tolerant in such matters.

The most important and vital document of identification anyone can have is a passport. Dr. Foy has one that states he is now a woman in the eyes of the Irish state.

Anything more than this really is entering the world of semantics.

MadsL

token101 wrote: »

Calling it a birth cert when it doesn't accurately record her birth is daft. Just have some standalone document that verifies her identity and confirms she had a sex change. Can't be that difficult surely.

Then good luck getting officials to accept it. A two tier birth cert system. How Irish.

seamus

A marriage document is changed by annulment. The marriage legally never existed.

This is a legal mechanism in which historical "fact" is altered so that it never happened.

Not saying that I agree with putting a big X across actual historical facts, but it would be wrong to say that historical records are always unchanged.

Why would it need to show the pre-reassigment status? Whose business is it?

Actually what I meant is that the birth cert should show her corrected sex, not that it was changed.

MadsL

padd b1975 wrote: »

Sorry, should have been more clearer.

Its safe for me to assume.

The fact of the matter is that Dr. Foy is living as a woman and being recognised as such on a daily basis.

Obviously in matters of appearance, it is clearly a man trying to look like a woman through surgery, hormone pills, clothing make up etc. Despite what some 'card carrying victims' may like to think, everyday Ireland can be surprisingly tolerant in such matters.

The most important and vital document of identification anyone can have is a passport. Dr. Foy has one that states he is now a woman in the eyes of the Irish state.

Anything more than this really is entering the world of semantics.

Marriage????

padd b1975

MadsL wrote: »

It's validity is.

I think validity can only be challenged by seeking an anullment, open to correction on that.

Divorce is slightly different, it states that from a legal point of view, the marriage has ended.

MadsL

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

This whole thing is nonsense.

Someone wants to falsify the details on a birth certificate. Whether they want to falsify their gender, or their parents name, or place of birth, doesn't matter. The birth certificate is a factual historical record, and the only reason to change one is in case of a clerical error. Not a personal preference, or philosophical or other such argument.

By all means change your name by deed poll, or your current official documentation. Fundamentally, who cares what gender a person wants to be? I couldn't care less.

The point is that there is a reasonable expectation of privacy under Article 8 of the ECHR. Why should the world at large be shown proof of Dr Foy's gender reassignment every time she uses her BC. Whose damn business is it?

seamus

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

The birth certificate is a factual historical record

As I mention above, the birth certificate in fact is not an historical record, simply a printout of the historical record. You can maintain the integrity of the historical record and change the birth cert.

Slutmonkey57b

MadsL wrote: »

It's validity is.

Which is not the same thing at all.

If the birth cert issue boils down to "the state uses the cert for identification purposes, and it no longer matches the persons changed circumstances" then the obvious solution is to create a new legal document which notes this, and allows the person to use it in lieu of a birth cert. Problem solved.

padd b1975

MadsL wrote: »

Marriage????

Ireland currently does not legislate for same sex marriage.

If Dr. Foy wishes to have his relationship with his boyfriend legally recognised, they can seek a civil partnership.

Don't think the big church wedding is in play for those guys;)

Slutmonkey57b

MadsL wrote: »

The point is that there is a reasonable expectation of privacy under Article 8 of the ECHR. Why should the world at large be shown proof of Dr Foy's gender reassignment every time she uses her BC. Whose damn business is it?

Who asks for a birth certificate from someone? When was the last time you were asked to provide one? I don't think I've even seen mine.

MadsL

padd b1975 wrote: »

Ireland currently does not legislate for same sex marriage.

They are NOT the same SEX!!!!!

If Dr. Foy wishes to have his relationship with his boyfriend legally recognised, they can seek a civil partnership.

Lovely. Legally a female according to her passport, denied a marriage.

Don't think the big church wedding is in play for those guys;)

Very condescending, transexuals cannot be Christians huh?