Dr Lydia Foy new case.

Penn

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

2) Read my point again. There is no reason why a bank or employer should need a birth certificate to establish identity. There are other, cheaper, better ways of doing that.

Like a driver's licence? You need a birth cert to get that.

Or a passport? You need a birth cert to get that.

Or simply an ID/Age card? You need a birth cert to get that.


The birth cert is an important document throughout your life, not just a record of your birth. If she is now legally recognised as a woman, her birth cert should be amended to reflect that.

BrianBoru00

aloyisious wrote: »

It seem's to me that the question before us is: (when an Irish Citizen take's a case on civil liberties to the Irish Courts, and the (our) courts rule in the citizen's favour) why is it that the Irish Civil governance system then fails to comply with the court ruling?

Why should it be acceptable for one part of that governance system to delay and stymie the efforts of another part of the system - the courts - to uphold a citizens rights?

The ruling AFAIK was that the state has to provide a method of recognising the new identity of any person.
So presumably there will have to be legislation (perhaps even a referendum - I'm not a legal expert) to introduce a new form of identification and and also to ensure that companies/banks/passport office accept this new identification method.

Changing a birth cert is not the way forward. The reason it s required for so many things is that it is a record of historical fact. .A female is defined as of, relating to, or designating the sex producing gametes (ova) that can be fertilized by male gametes (spermatozoa)..
Even if one were to dispute the fact that it also has a definition of of: pertaining to, or characteristic of a female person which is impossible to tell at birth.

So assuming the state is supposed to rectify the situation as a result of the ruling wouldn t it take a number years anyhow to deal with the legislation etc. and if so should it necessarily take precendence over other pending legislation such as childrens protection act etc..?

Slutmonkey57b

Penn wrote: »

Like a driver's licence? You need a birth cert to get that.

Or a passport? You need a birth cert to get that.

Or simply an ID/Age card? You need a birth cert to get that.


The birth cert is an important document throughout your life, not just a record of your birth. If she is now legally recognised as a woman, her birth cert should be amended to reflect that.

1) You shouldn't need to provide *any* documentation, if the private entity is doing its job properly, and using an electronic Id checking service (of which there are many). Only if you fail a check should they need to request documents.

2) As has been suggested, creating a new legal document "record of changed details" and making that an acceptable document at state level negates the need to make the birth cert mutable.

3) If you change fundamental personal details like your name or gender you have to change your documents anyway. A much better procedure for people in that situation is for the state to have a "change of persona" system where once the citizen has got legal approval to change their persona (similar to how they have to get approval to be described as married or divorced), then changing their state records and documents can be done in one fell swoop. Again, there should be no requirement for a birth cert to be mutable in order for that to be achieved.

4) if I was born "Johnny McBoards", a boy, in Ballygobally, in 1970, and decided tomorrow that I wanted to be "Jane Snaggle", female, born in New York, in 1925, then should my birth certificate be changed?

Slutmonkey57b

aloyisious wrote: »

It seem's to me that the question before us is: (when an Irish Citizen take's a case on civil liberties to the Irish Courts, and the (our) courts rule in the citizen's favour) why is it that the Irish Civil governance system then fails to comply with the court ruling?

Why should it be acceptable for one part of that governance system to delay and stymie the efforts of another part of the system - the courts - to uphold a citizens rights?

This is an excellent point, I agree entirely.

Why it should be necessary for Dr Foy to require an amended birth cert is another question entirely, and as I stated before, I can't see a justifiable reason why it should be necessary for a person who changed gender later in life to have a document falsely stating they were *born* the gender they changed to. If I change my name by deed poll tomorrow my birth cert stays the same.

I don't see how it solves administrative problems, or reduces prejudice. Prejudice is defeated by confronting it, not by hiding from it.

Penn

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

1) You shouldn't need to provide *any* documentation, if the private entity is doing its job properly, and using an electronic Id checking service (of which there are many). Only if you fail a check should they need to request documents.

2) As has been suggested, creating a new legal document "record of changed details" and making that an acceptable document at state level negates the need to make the birth cert mutable.

3) If you change fundamental personal details like your name or gender you have to change your documents anyway. A much better procedure for people in that situation is for the state to have a "change of persona" system where once the citizen has got legal approval to change their persona (similar to how they have to get approval to be described as married or divorced), then changing their state records and documents can be done in one fell swoop. Again, there should be no requirement for a birth cert to be mutable in order for that to be achieved.

4) if I was born "Johnny McBoards", a boy, in Ballygobally, in 1970, and decided tomorrow that I wanted to be "Jane Snaggle", female, born in New York, in 1925, then should my birth certificate be changed?

1) But it's not just jobs where this is an issue. Again, the birth cert is an important document throughout your life.

2) Birth certs can already be changed to include updated information.

3) And in the absence of the "Change of persona" system you described which doesn't exist, then the birth cert should be amended to perform that same task. And again, the birth cert is already mutable.

4) If you became legally recognised as Jane Snaggle, a female, then yes your birth certificate should be changed. As for the New York, 1925 part, I won't dignify that with a response.

griffdaddy

MadsL wrote: »

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

Texas is actually surprisingly liberal I've been finding out lately. Apparently Austin is a liberal hipster's paradise.

CreepingDeath

Penn wrote: »

If you became legally recognised as Jane Snaggle, a female, then yes your birth certificate should be changed.

Absolutely not, it's a historical record.

I can't resit my leaving cert, get straight honours A's and ask to have my 1989 document altered.

It's falsifying who I was.

aloyisious

BrianBoru00 wrote: »

The ruling AFAIK was that the state has to provide a method of recognising the new identity of any person.
So presumably there will have to be legislation (perhaps even a referendum - I'm not a legal expert) to introduce a new form of identification and and also to ensure that companies/banks/passport office accept this new identification method.

Changing a birth cert is not the way forward. The reason it s required for so many things is that it is a record of historical fact. .A female is defined as of, relating to, or designating the sex producing gametes (ova) that can be fertilized by male gametes (spermatozoa)..
Even if one were to dispute the fact that it also has a definition of of: pertaining to, or characteristic of a female person which is impossible to tell at birth.

So assuming the state is supposed to rectify the situation as a result of the ruling wouldn t it take a number years anyhow to deal with the legislation etc. and if so should it necessarily take precendence over other pending legislation such as childrens protection act etc..?

...............................................................................

I'd ask why the department of state responsible for laws changes cannot be more pro-active in planning legislation? If it accept's that the courts might rule against it, it should be prepared to move ASAP in complying with the court ruling.

I suppose it's the accepted procrastination of the lawyers and politicians I'm moaning about here. I see that changing details on a birth cert is not the way to go, as I presume that the details on any form are taken from a birth registry book, the book (or computer record) being the main source of information. One would also have to alter/amend/add-to the details on the register, so the notion of an added-on certificate (a codicil of sorts - so to speak) listing the amended details might be the way to go.

Is it actually a requirement for such changes to rely on statute law changes or could a Ministerial Instrument be relied upon to do the job, even if only as a time-limited instrument while an amending statute was written-up for passing onto the books?

EDIT: I accept that (like CreepingDeath say's above) it's a historical record and cannot be altered to allow for foibles of life (it'd be like amending the original physical item Magna Carta was recorded-on).

Annasopra

The Minister for Social Protection is drawing up laws.

It is complicated because there is a suggestion that in order to legally change their sex a person will have to divorce.

Penn

CreepingDeath wrote: »

Absolutely not, it's a historical record.

I can't resit my leaving cert, get straight honours A's and ask to have my 1989 document altered.

It's falsifying who I was.

I'm not saying history has to be re-written. I'm saying that for a legal document, if she is now legally recognised as a female, the birth certificate should be amended to reflect that. I'm not saying Tipp-ex her name and gender out and just write over it. I'm saying there should be some sort of recognition on the certificate that she is now legally recognised as a female under her current name.

I don't know what her original birth name was, but if she applied for a drivers licence, said her name was Lydia Foy and she was female on the application, then handed over her birth cert which said John Smith (male), there is a legal confusion there because she doesn't have a birth cert as Lydia Foy.

The birth cert is considered to be the ultimate proof of identity, more so than passport, drivers licence, ID card etc. The birth cert is what it all relates back to. If her identity has legally changed (which it has), it should be reflected on the birth cert.

CreepingDeath

Penn wrote: »

The birth cert is considered to be the ultimate proof of identity, more so than passport, drivers licence, ID card etc.

The birth cert is what it all relates back to. If her identity has legally changed (which it has), it should be reflected on the birth cert.

I completely disagree.
A birth cert is a historical immutable record.

If the government/EU brought in some form of national/international ID card, I'd have no problem with the card reflecting their current details.

But I work in a security related field.
When it comes to names, aliases and previous identities, these are all very important.

I'm sure credit card companies and security agencies are very interested to know who the person "really" started out as.

What happens if I have a credit card, then change my birth cert and apply for another one? What happens the debt in the first one?
And that's just a simple example.

Penn

CreepingDeath wrote: »

I completely disagree.
A birth cert is a historical immutable record.

If the government/EU brought in some form of national/international ID card, I'd have no problem with the card reflecting their current details.

But I work in a security related field.
When it comes to names, aliases and previous identities, these are all very important.

I'm sure credit card companies and security agencies are very interested to know who the person "really" started out as.

What happens if I have a credit card, then change my birth cert and apply for another one? What happens the debt in the first one?
And that's just a simple example.

Firstly, a birth cert is not completely immutable, and there are records on it which can be changed.

As for the rest, again I must point out that I'm not saying history should be rewritten. Personally, I believe that the name and gender the person was born as should remain. But the new information should also be added to reflect that persons new legally recognised name and gender.

You give an example of credit card companies and security agencies being very interested to know who the person really started out as. Without a change to the birth certificate, would it not be more intriguing to them if a woman came in with the birth certificate of a man with a different name?

By doing that, you're essentially suggesting that everybody who changes their sex and gender have to constantly inform people and explain that they were born as the opposite sex. Do you have any idea how humiliating and demeaning that would be?

Slutmonkey57b

Penn wrote: »

Firstly, a birth cert is not completely immutable, and there are records on it which can be changed.

As for the rest, again I must point out that I'm not saying history should be rewritten. Personally, I believe that the name and gender the person was born as should remain. But the new information should also be added to reflect that persons new legally recognised name and gender.

You give an example of credit card companies and security agencies being very interested to know who the person really started out as. Without a change to the birth certificate, would it not be more intriguing to them if a woman came in with the birth certificate of a man with a different name?

By doing that, you're essentially suggesting that everybody who changes their sex and gender have to constantly inform people and explain that they were born as the opposite sex. Do you have any idea how humiliating and demeaning that would be?

Again, I seriously dispute the use of "constantly" here. Get your facts straight.

If I change my name, then once my identity is established under that name, any subsequent electronic check will be successful and there is no reason a private entity would need to inquire further. (except under specific legally justifiable circumstances)

Lastly, this would be humiliating in a prejudiced society. Prejudice is not defeated by hiding from it.

darced

This post has been deleted.

Annasopra

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

What are you on about?

Slutmonkey57b

Penn wrote: »

1) But it's not just jobs where this is an issue. Again, the birth cert is an important document throughout your life.

2) Birth certs can already be changed to include updated information.

3) And in the absence of the "Change of persona" system you described which doesn't exist, then the birth cert should be amended to perform that same task. And again, the birth cert is already mutable.

4) If you became legally recognised as Jane Snaggle, a female, then yes your birth certificate should be changed. As for the New York, 1925 part, I won't dignify that with a response.

2) Please confirm what information on a birth cert can be "updated". If you're referring to *missing* information such as a fathers name or baby's name, then that's a very different matter to changing the known facts of a child's birth.

4) The proposal is that known factual information about a child's birth should be changed to something which is known to be false (in this case, the child's gender at birth). The obvious question is, what other known facts should be mutable to patently false information? Date of birth? Place of birth? Time? Mother's name?

darced

This post has been deleted.

Annasopra

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

And?

darced

This post has been deleted.

ballsymchugh

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

maybe it'd be serious if she was from iran?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2KsZHRrFpU

orestes

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Have you checked the birth cert of every woman you've ever slept with? If not then you might wanna go chop your thingy off, before it rots and falls off like, I hear that's how this thing spreads.

P_1

Standard way for politicians to deal with decisions that don't go their way.

I mean there was some case that went against them 20 odd years ago that they didn't bother their arses legislating for after all...

Penn

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

Again, I seriously dispute the use of "constantly" here. Get your facts straight.

If I change my name, then once my identity is established under that name, any subsequent electronic check will be successful and there is no reason a private entity would need to inquire further. (except under specific legally justifiable circumstances)

Lastly, this would be humiliating in a prejudiced society. Prejudice is not defeated by hiding from it.

"Constantly" as in every time her birth cert is required for anything. Not "Constantly" as in on a day to day basis. Again, if a woman called Jane Snaggles presented her birth cert and it was for a man called John Boardsley, she would have to explain that she had a sex change and is now legally recognised as female.

As for "humiliating in a prejudiced society", I agree. Problem is, we are in a prejudiced society. Prejudice is not defeated by hiding from it, I agree. One of the ways to defeat it however is to remove it as being some sort of big deal. By allowing some form of recognition on her birth certificate that while she was born as a male she is now a legally recognised female, it becomes a legally recognised and protected fact that she is female.

Penn

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

2) Please confirm what information on a birth cert can be "updated". If you're referring to *missing* information such as a fathers name or baby's name, then that's a very different matter to changing the known facts of a child's birth.

4) The proposal is that known factual information about a child's birth should be changed to something which is known to be false (in this case, the child's gender at birth). The obvious question is, what other known facts should be mutable to patently false information? Date of birth? Place of birth? Time? Mother's name?

2) http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/birth_family_relationships/after_your_baby_is_born/registering_birth_your_baby.html

If you marry after the birth of your child, and if the father's name has not already been entered in the Register of Births, you may re-register the birth. Under the Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2002, it is possible to change the surname of the child where a couple are re-registering a birth in order to add the father's details, if the registration took place between October 1997 and the commencement of the legislation in October 2002. However, it is not possible to change the surname of the child in the Register of Births if the father's details were recorded in the original registration. The child's surname can only be changed at the joint request of both parents.
It is also possible to enter the father's details if the mother is married to someone else.

For births on or after 5 December 2005, parents who marry each other after the birth may re-register the birth to reflect their marital status, and may change the child's surname.

You can change the child's birth name which was their birth name at the time of their birth

4) Again, I believe that the original information should still be present on the birth certificate for security and legal purposes. But an amendment to include the updated information should be included.

Slutmonkey57b

Penn wrote: »

2) http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/birth_family_relationships/after_your_baby_is_born/registering_birth_your_baby.html



You can change the child's birth name which was their birth name at the time of their birth

4) Again, I believe that the original information should still be present on the birth certificate for security and legal purposes. But an amendment to include the updated information should be included.

I'd be wary of comparing a change of surname with a change of gender / date. Furthermore, I'd have the same questions of parents who want to change this after the fact as I would of someone who wanted to change more fundamental information, namely : why do you feel the need, and what do you think this changes?

CreepingDeath

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

why do you feel the need, and what do you think this changes?

The reason I'm annoyed at this Dr Foy individual for wasting taxpayers money on this issue is that it's blatantly obviously they were a man.

They ain't fooling anyone.

Penn

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

I'd be wary of comparing a change of surname with a change of gender / date.

I'm not comparing them. Simply pointing out that some information on birth certs can be changed at a later date, so there is a precedent.

CreepingDeath wrote: »

The reason I'm annoyed at this Dr Foy individual for wasting taxpayers money on this issue is that it's blatantly obviously they were a man.

They ain't fooling anyone.

She's not trying to "fool" anybody. The ECHR found in her favour. So I'm sorry, but I for one do not consider her to be wasting taxpayers money in this fight, because the State is not recognising her right, and that's an important thing to fight against, regardless of what it's in relation to. And as for it being "blatantly obvious" that she was a man, I disagree. If she walked past me in the street, I genuinely don't think I would have known, or even noticed anything about her.

mcwinning

This is a somewhat related question, but is it allowed to change a birth cert when someone legally changes their name? I am generally not really in favour of changing birth certs but am not sure what to feel about this case because I do not know enough about transgendered people and how updating a birth cert would affect their lives.

padd b1975

orestes wrote: »

Have you checked the birth cert of every woman you've ever slept with? If not then you might wanna go chop your thingy off, before it rots and falls off like, I hear that's how this thing spreads.

I just discreetly check for the old apple of Adam.

Nodin

padd b1975 wrote: »

I just discreetly check for the old apple of Adam.

That gets taken too.