Dr Lydia Foy new case.

padd b1975

Nodin wrote: »

That gets taken too.

Ohh crap!

Mr Benevolent

Surely a birth cert shows what sex you were born as, not the sex you are now. It's documented proof of your coming into the world, it stays the same no matter what. Not unless you got your chromosones all changed to XX anyway.

MadsL

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.

You have now have admitted there is a cake, but are disputing if the frosting is green or blue. Do move on.

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.

For the love of God why on earth would you create a new legal document that NO-ONE else in the world uses??? Do you work in the Irish PS by any chance?? Everyone else in the EU is reissuing the birth cert, why does Ireland have to be so fecking different the whoe time??

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.

More overcomplicated claptrap. You still have no given any good reason why the Birth Cert should be "immutable" it is not the 10 commandments ffs. Just a public record.

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?

You have invented time-travel? Tell us more.

griffdaddy wrote: »

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

Trust me, Austin really ain't Texas. But it is a hippy/hipster paradise.

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.

No, but colleges will not ask for your original results when presented with your recent LC Straight A certificate. The transgendered are asked for proof of who they "used" to be. So analogy fail.

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

Prejudice is not defeated by hiding from it.

Is it defeated by providing personal medical information to all and sundry? Perhaps we should give a right to men to enquire if boobs are natural or fake and ask women for certificates showing their boob size at 18.

Confab wrote: »

Surely a birth cert shows what sex you were born as, not the sex you are now. It's documented proof of your coming into the world, it stays the same no matter what. Not unless you got your chromosones all changed to XX anyway.

What is harmed by making a one word change to it? Seriously, I'd like to know. No-one in this thread has been able to give a single good reason for the 'sacredness' of the Birth Cert.

Penn

Confab wrote: »

Surely a birth cert shows what sex you were born as, not the sex you are now. It's documented proof of your coming into the world, it stays the same no matter what. Not unless you got your chromosones all changed to XX anyway.

Again, a birth cert is used for much more than a record of your birth. It's the proof of identification for which all other forms of identification (passport, drivers licence, ID card) is based on.

If she applied for a driving licence under her new name and gender, the information on her birth certificate is no longer accurate. Some form of change should be noted in the birth certificate to show that she is now legally and for all other intents and purposes a female by her current name.

Annasopra

Penn wrote: »

Again, a birth cert is used for much more than a record of your birth. It's the proof of identification for which all other forms of identification (passport, drivers licence, ID card) is based on.

If she applied for a driving licence under her new name and gender, the information on her birth certificate is no longer accurate. Some form of change should be noted in the birth certificate to show that she is now legally and for all other intents and purposes a female by her current name.

Trans people can already get passports in their correct gender identity by the way

Penn

Well that's something I'm happy to see anyway.

Super-Rush

Creepingdeath banned.

Slutmonkey57b

MadsL wrote: »

You have now have admitted there is a cake, but are disputing if the frosting is green or blue. Do move on.

Nope. I'm proving that for everyone that says a person is "required" to provide a birth cert "constantly" (to quote another poster), there is in fact only a small number of scenarios where a person might be required to provide proof of their identity. In those small number of scenarios, the entities who are asking for birth certs shouldn't ask for them at all.

So if the argument is "Dr Foy needs to be able to change her birth cert because the bank/employer might ask her for it" the correct response is

"Banks/employers shouldn't ask anyone for a birth cert at any time."

I would look askance at any bank who tried to bull**** me that a birth cert was required to prove my identity.

For the love of God why on earth would you create a new legal document that NO-ONE else in the world uses??? Do you work in the Irish PS by any chance?? Everyone else in the EU is reissuing the birth cert, why does Ireland have to be so fecking different the whoe time??

Why would you "need" to change the birth certificate so that someone can pretend they were born as Gender A, when they were actually born as Gender B? In any situation where they are required to prove their identity, this can be done without changing, or referencing, the birth cert at all. Even when doing so for official state documents, they only need to provide proof once. What is the objection to having a "deed poll" for gender changes in the same way that there is a deed poll for name changes? It's a much simpler approach than falsifying records.

There isn't a logical administrative reason why a birth cert should be changed.

No, I don't work in the Public Service. You seem to have a low opinion of the public service, you still haven't responded to my question about why you assume they're all unprofessional bigots who sneer at people who they deal with. Based on your comments towards people here who disagree with you, I think you may be projecting a little.

More overcomplicated claptrap. You still have no given any good reason why the Birth Cert should be "immutable" it is not the 10 commandments ffs. Just a public record.

A quick basic one that springs to mind is "Census records". They're no use to us in our lifetime but they prove invaluable to historians and researchers.

In any case, you're attempting to redirect the burden of proof. You're the one that wants to change the system. Explain why it's "necessary" to change it so that someone can put false details about their birth and wave a certificate around to "prove" it?

(The clear answer is : Gender Politics, by the way. Not "banks ask for it", as I've covered above.)

You have invented time-travel? Tell us more.

I was quite clearly indicating that the issue I have is the falsification of records. Dr Foy was no more born female than she was born in 1925. Yet, we are to believe that one falsification is entirely reasonable, while the other is not.

No, but colleges will not ask for your original results when presented with your recent LC Straight A certificate. The transgendered are asked for proof of who they "used" to be. So analogy fail.

As I've pointed out several times, there is next to no reason why a transgendered person should need to be asked for proof of who they "used to be", unless they exist on someone's records and their identity changes. Exactly the same burden of proof might be on them as it might be on someone who changed their name by deed poll/marriage, namely: "Please provide a legal document confirming this change". Even then, the number of institutions that would be under a legal obligation to obtain this proof is limited. And if you assume that this change of identity (name or gender) is of some deep significance to whoever might be tasked with making this change, I think you underestimate the lack of interest the average clerical worker has in your personal life.

And I'll repeat: Dr Foy's next efforts might be better served issuing a challenge to the institutions that have requested a birth cert as proof of ID in the first place when one isn't required.

s it defeated by providing personal medical information to all and sundry? Perhaps we should give a right to men to enquire if boobs are natural or fake and ask women for certificates showing their boob size at 18.

Is it defeated by lying? Fundamental advances in human rights are established when the downtrodden and oppressed are recognised as equal, as being no different in their rights than "the rest of us". Hiding doesn't do any good.

What is harmed by making a one word change to it? Seriously, I'd like to know. No-one in this thread has been able to give a single good reason for the 'sacredness' of the Birth Cert.

The burden of proof is on you. Why does someone need to change the gender on their birth cert?

1. Once they have obtained changed official State Documents, there is no reason to re-produce the Birth Cert for any private 3rd party.
2. Any entity that holds their information would ask for a legal document for a change of name by deed poll just as they would for a change of gender and there is no reason why the transgendered would need to be treated differently. Again, there is no reason why an amended Birth Cert would be required to do that.
3. Changing your name by deed poll changes your identity but does not change your birth cert. Why would this scenario need to be different?
4. Why do you assume this is "medical data" when it is actually a matter of personal choice?

The answer to all of these is Gender Politics. They are attempting to say "I was always Gender A". That is, very simply, not true. What that implies is a deeper philosophical argument about the nature of gender, personal experience, and the root of "nature or nurture" to use a crude rephrasing. None of which is relevant to the issue of "Should we falsify records so that anyone who wants to tell people they are Gender A can get a cert to "prove" it?"

Slutmonkey57b

Penn wrote: »

Again, a birth cert is used for much more than a record of your birth. It's the proof of identification for which all other forms of identification (passport, drivers licence, ID card) is based on.

If she applied for a driving licence under her new name and gender, the information on her birth certificate is no longer accurate. Some form of change should be noted in the birth certificate to show that she is now legally and for all other intents and purposes a female by her current name.

If she had only changed her name by deed poll, instead of her entire gender, then the information on the birth certificate is also "no longer accurate". Yet the birth certificate is not changed in that case. Are changes of gender "more worthy" of the right than changes of name? Why?

Well written post Slutmonkey57b.

MadsL

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

Nope. I'm proving that for everyone that says a person is "required" to provide a birth cert "constantly" (to quote another poster), there is in fact only a small number of scenarios where a person might be required to provide proof of their identity. In those small number of scenarios, the entities who are asking for birth certs shouldn't ask for them at all.

Wut? Go try getting a mortgage, a social security card, a bank account, a job, an American visa, a marriage, a scholarship, a driving licence, an online share trading account, adopting a child, a mature student placement, a residence permit, an age card, a pension, etc etc without being asked for your birth cert.

Stop flogging this dead horse, it's dead I tell ya.

So if the argument is "Dr Foy needs to be able to change her birth cert because the bank/employer might ask her for it" the correct response is

"Banks/employers shouldn't ask anyone for a birth cert at any time."

I would look askance at any bank who tried to bull**** me that a birth cert was required to prove my identity.

Shouldn't. Really. You are reaching now.

Why would you "need" to change the birth certificate so that someone can pretend they were born as Gender A, when they were actually born as Gender B? In any situation where they are required to prove their identity, this can be done without changing, or referencing, the birth cert at all.

Any foreign government I have dealt with has required my birth cert to establish residency. The Irish Govt does too.

Even when doing so for official state documents, they only need to provide proof once. What is the objection to having a "deed poll" for gender changes in the same way that there is a deed poll for name changes? It's a much simpler approach than falsifying records.

Why have a new system different to the rest of Europe and the US ffs? Why? It's not simpler, and you are correcting records, not falsifying them.

There isn't a logical administrative reason why a birth cert should be changed.

Yes there is. To reflect the sex as shown on all other identity documents for consistancy, and to protect the privacy of the individual and afford them the dignity of a globally recognised document reflecting their gender identity.

You haven't given a reason for NOT doing this.

No, I don't work in the Public Service. You seem to have a low opinion of the public service, you still haven't responded to my question about why you assume they're all unprofessional bigots who sneer at people who they deal with. Based on your comments towards people here who disagree with you, I think you may be projecting a little.

I meant your two tier system seems as Kafka-esque as the two-tier Irish motor tax system (engine size AND emissions) that runs two simultaneous methods of calculating road tax even thought the method for calculating the new system of tax is publicly known for engines back to 1980 and is tested and printed on the NCT cert. That and the fact that no other country runs two tax systems for engine size AND emissions based on an arbitary age of the car anywhere else in the world. The public sector thinking that came up with that piece of genius was what I was referring to as you seem to want to complicate it with "new" systems. It is a one word change on a piece of paper.

A quick basic one that springs to mind is "Census records". They're no use to us in our lifetime but they prove invaluable to historians and researchers.

I'm sure historians will have a good chuckle at this thread. Do you honestly believe that the tiny numbers of transgendered in Ireland will have any statistical impact??

In any case, you're attempting to redirect the burden of proof. You're the one that wants to change the system. Explain why it's "necessary" to change it so that someone can put false details about their birth and wave a certificate around to "prove" it?

I have explained why, over and over. Back to you thinking of a reason why not.

(The clear answer is : Gender Politics, by the way. Not "banks ask for it", as I've covered above.)

Except it is not just banks - others ask too.

I was quite clearly indicating that the issue I have is the falsification of records. Dr Foy was no more born female than she was born in 1925. Yet, we are to believe that one falsification is entirely reasonable, while the other is not.

And you insist on characterizing it as falsification not correction or adjustment. Why, if my gender is changed may I not correct the record of that gender. It is my birth cert after all.

And can I ask you, that since 26 EU countries and the US already allow this, do you intend Ireland stand alone on this issue? Because why? Spite?

As I've pointed out several times, there is next to no reason why a transgendered person should need to be asked for proof of who they "used to be", unless they exist on someone's records and their identity changes. Exactly the same burden of proof might be on them as it might be on someone who changed their name by deed poll/marriage, namely: "Please provide a legal document confirming this change". Even then, the number of institutions that would be under a legal obligation to obtain this proof is limited. And if you assume that this change of identity (name or gender) is of some deep significance to whoever might be tasked with making this change, I think you underestimate the lack of interest the average clerical worker has in your personal life.

I think you badly underestimate a reasonable expectation to privacy concerning one's medical affairs.

And I'll repeat: Dr Foy's next efforts might be better served issuing a challenge to the institutions that have requested a birth cert as proof of ID in the first place when one isn't required.

Completely missing the point. As someone who has tried repeatedly to get Irish Motor Insurance companies to stop discriminating on the basis of where someone is born, Dr Foy should not have to protest each event. She has already won that court case.

Is it defeated by lying? Fundamental advances in human rights are established when the downtrodden and oppressed are recognised as equal, as being no different in their rights than "the rest of us". Hiding doesn't do any good.

Lying? Could you be more emotive please. (shakes head)

The burden of proof is on you. Why does someone need to change the gender on their birth cert?

1. Once they have obtained changed official State Documents, there is no reason to re-produce the Birth Cert for any private 3rd party.
   
2. Yes, they do, to enter another country as a resident for instance, or any of the circumstances above.
3. Any entity that holds their information would ask for a legal document for a change of name by deed poll just as they would for a change of gender and there is no reason why the transgendered would need to be treated differently. Again, there is no reason why an amended Birth Cert would be required to do that.
   
4. Proof of parenthood? Sc
5. Changing your name by deed poll changes your identity but does not change your birth cert. Why would this scenario need to be different?
   
6. Forenames may be changed on a birth certificate.
7. Why do you assume this is "medical data" when it is actually a matter of personal choice?
   
8. I see your true colours coming out, do you not approve?

The answer to all of these is Gender Politics. They are attempting to say "I was always Gender A". That is, very simply, not true. What that implies is a deeper philosophical argument about the nature of gender, personal experience, and the root of "nature or nurture" to use a crude rephrasing. None of which is relevant to the issue of "Should we falsify records so that anyone who wants to tell people they are Gender A can get a cert to "prove" it?"

Or y'know basic manners and politeness in dealing with a reasonable request and less posturing about "immutable" documents, lying, falsification and frankly State spite.

Absurd position to take.

MadsL

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

If she had only changed her name by deed poll, instead of her entire gender, then the information on the birth certificate is also "no longer accurate". Yet the birth certificate is not changed in that case. Are changes of gender "more worthy" of the right than changes of name? Why?

You can change the forename on a birth cert without deed poll.

Mary Smith, Male looks a bit daft don't you think?

Slutmonkey57b

MadsL wrote: »

Wut? Go try getting a mortgage, a social security card Wrong country., a bank accountNot necessary, as above. Any bank claiming it as a requirement is lying and should be challenged., a job Wrong. "Some" jobs, as before, and said jobs should not ask for it., an American visa, a marriage, a scholarship Where? Name the institution. What type of scholarship?, a driving licence, an online share trading accountGot one. Didn't need one. Any share trader claiming they need your birth cert to establish identity is lying., adopting a childState business. Deed poll recepients would have the same issue with differences in name. Why would transgendered people be excluded?, a mature student placementName the institution. I know mature students. None of them were asked for a birth cert., a residence permitResidence where? In another country?, an age card, a pensionI have one, wasn't asked for a birth cert. Checked with the other pension holder, they weren't asked for one., etc etc without being asked for your birth cert.
Stop flogging this dead horse, it's dead I tell ya.

You are repeatedly either lying (I'm fed up giving you the benefit of the doubt) throughout this comment, or attempting to re-introduce already discredited scenarios where you claim someone is "always" asked for a birth cert when either they aren't, or just as importantly shouldn't be.

Shouldn't. Really. You are reaching now.

No I'm not. It's an important point. The issue of banks or employers asking for unnecessary documentation affects far more people than the transgendered. It is not a "legal requirement" at all, as some posters, and especially you, like to make out. They should be challenged on the subject.

Any foreign government I have dealt with has required my birth cert to establish residency. The Irish Govt does too.

Do you change countries a lot? Other countries are entitled to decide whether or not to let someone become a resident in their state. They can use any criteria they like to do so. Countries generally frown upon people who fabricate or falsify evidence about their identity. In this case, asking for a Birth Cert is entirely reasonable. Falls into the category of "state business" which is what a Birth Cert is for.

Why have a new system different to the rest of Europe and the US ffs? Why? It's not simpler, and you are correcting records, not falsifying them.

So Dr Foy was born female, and did not have gender reassignment surgery? Hold on..... Nope. Having a certificate altered so that it says "this person was born Gender A" when they were born Gender B is nothing else except a falsification of the truth. Whether or not you believe it is a justifiable falsification of the truth is another matter entirely.

It is certainly not a "correction".

Yes there is. To reflect the sex as shown on all other identity documents for consistancy, and to protect the privacy of the individual and afford them the dignity of a globally recognised document reflecting their gender identity.

You haven't given a reason for NOT doing this.

Explain why a deed poll serves the same purpose for changes of name, and why no change is required to a Birth Cert in that circumstance. Merely expand the remit of Deed polls to genders as well as names and your problem is solved with no need for amended birth certs.

How is privacy an issue here? If privacy is really an issue, you should be pushing for fewer places to request a birth cert at all. As I've proven, they don't need to.

On the one hand, you're requesting "privacy" for people, and on the other "the dignity of global recognition".... which is it? Is a passport not a document providing "global recognition"? Do you bring your birth cert on holiday with you?

Or are we getting to the truth of the matter? That what you are advocating has nothing to do with administrative matters, and is solely to do with the ability of a transgendered individual to claim that their gender has not changed through the course of their life when, in fact, it has.

As I've pointed out, that is an entirely different discussion. If you're prepared to admit that that IS your position, then say so. Don't hide behind flimsy excuses about how it would make it easier down at the credit union.

I meant your two tier system seems as Kafka-esque as the two-tier Irish motor tax system

I'll cut this part off here as discussions about motor tax are about as diversionary and irrelevant as it's possible to get.

I'm sure historians will have a good chuckle at this thread. Do you honestly believe that the tiny numbers of transgendered in Ireland will have any statistical impact??

One quick example. Like I said, the burden of proof is on you, because you claim a change to the system is "necessary". So far, you haven't provided any argument that can't be quickly and easily dismissed, or accommodated without changing birth certificates.

I have explained why, over and over. Back to you thinking of a reason why not.

You haven't, other than "Everyone asks for them". Which I've quite thoroughly discredited, above.

And you insist on characterizing it as falsification not correction or adjustment. Why, if my gender is changed may I not correct the record of that gender. It is my birth cert after all.

That's it exactly. In that scenario, your gender has changed. Yet you advocate changing the historical record to pretend that it hasn't. Why would you feel that would be necessary? Is being transgendered something to be ashamed of? To be hidden?

Back to nitpicking administrative points, your birth cert is a reflection of State records. The records belong to the state just as much as they do to you.

And can I ask you, that since 26 EU countries and the US already allow this, do you intend Ireland stand alone on this issue? Because why? Spite?

I dispute that it's at all necessary, and I dispute that the putative reasons given for its necessity are even true. I think it is simply the case that a person who has changed gender wants to have an official document that allows them to deny that this change ever took place.

I think you badly underestimate a reasonable expectation to privacy concerning one's medical affairs.

On the contrary, I don't. Which is why I advocate attacking any bank or employer that asks for medical records, birth certificates, or any other personal information without a legally justifiable reason. And again, why is this a "medical record"? Legally, it is a change of identity in a manner similar to a change of name. One step further, but the same basic principle.

Completely missing the point. As someone who has tried repeatedly to get Irish Motor Insurance companies to stop discriminating on the basis of where someone is born, Dr Foy should not have to protest each event. She has already won that court case.

Against the insurance companies? Now you've lost me.

The burden of proof is on you. Why does someone need to change the gender on their birth cert?

1. Once they have obtained changed official State Documents, there is no reason to re-produce the Birth Cert for any private 3rd party.
   
2. Yes, they do, to enter another country as a resident for instance, or any of the circumstances above.
3. Any entity that holds their information would ask for a legal document for a change of name by deed poll just as they would for a change of gender and there is no reason why the transgendered would need to be treated differently. Again, there is no reason why an amended Birth Cert would be required to do that.
   
4. Proof of parenthood? Sc
5. Changing your name by deed poll changes your identity but does not change your birth cert. Why would this scenario need to be different?
   
6. Forenames may be changed on a birth certificate.
7. Why do you assume this is "medical data" when it is actually a matter of personal choice?
   
8. I see your true colours coming out, do you not approve?

I've been quite clear that I don't approve of changing the historical record to suit someone's change of identity later on in life. I think you are trying to imply that my "true colours" are that I either disapprove of transgenderism, or am in some way prejudiced against them. I've already stated it does not affect my life one jot if someone wants to change their identity. People should be free to live, marry, and love however they want.

Or y'know basic manners and politeness in dealing with a reasonable request and less posturing about "immutable" documents, lying, falsification and frankly State spite.

Absurd position to take.

I'm not posturing, I'm merely taking up a position you don't agree with. Suggesting that a person who has changed identity needs to have the historical record expunged so that they can pretend their identity has not changed seems absurd. You're welcome to argue why that's not the case of course. As I've stated, I believe it would be better to combat discrimination and prejudice by not hiding these matters, and by forcing those who are prejudiced and using discrimination out into the open so they can be soundly defeated. All this case does is hide the matter away.

"State spite"? The state has a lot of things on its plate with relation to how it treats its citizens. On this matter, I think it is reasonable to suggest that there is no reason to change a birth certificate because it is not the case that the gender recorded at birth was recorded "incorrectly".

As to suggesting that "lying" is emotive language, I simply state:
If I was born Gender A, and change to Gender B, that is a fact.
Having a document changed to indicate that I was born Gender A is a falsification. Telling the world that the change didn't happen is a lie.

The fact that you find that emotive is nothing to do with the facts as laid out. As before, either you are of the opinion that it is a justifiable lie, or you are not. But it is still a lie.

Slutmonkey57b

MadsL wrote: »

You can change the forename on a birth cert without deed poll.

Mary Smith, Male looks a bit daft don't you think?

According to the link posted previously, you can change a surname. Not a forename. I believe that it is possible in cases where a baby's forename has not been chosen, to add that information in later. That however is not the same as changing a forename.

Mary was quite a common boy's (middle) name in ireland in the past.

MadsL

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

According to the link posted previously, you can change a surname. Not a forename. I believe that it is possible in cases where a baby's forename has not been chosen, to add that information in later. That however is not the same as changing a forename.

Mary was quite a common boy's (middle) name in ireland in the past.

Confirmation name, no?

gurramok

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

You are repeatedly either lying (I'm fed up giving you the benefit of the doubt) throughout this comment, or attempting to re-introduce already discredited scenarios where you claim someone is "always" asked for a birth cert when either they aren't, or just as importantly shouldn't be.

No I'm not. It's an important point. The issue of banks or employers asking for unnecessary documentation affects far more people than the transgendered. It is not a "legal requirement" at all, as some posters, and especially you, like to make out. They should be challenged on the subject.

As I had brought some of this up, my employer(multinational employing a few hundred people) required a birth cert when starting the job, that was a few years ago. Maybe it depends on the type of employer if some do not ask for it, I do not know. Has the requirement changed in law since? I do not know as I started my job in the 00's. Other posters might know.

Same for bank accounts, i've opened bank accounts most recently with the defunct First National Building Society, defunct Anglo Irish bank and Rabobank. Last account opened maybe 5-6 yrs ago, i was asked for my birth cert along with my passport as proof of ID. Again, has it changed since or do the likes of TSB\AIB\BOI ask for it now, i do not know.

The asking of the birth cert question riled me too as I was born in the UK(moved to Ireland aged 3) yet having an Irish passport. It makes applying for official documentation like drivers licence that bit more difficult for me sourcing extra documentation in order to prove I've Irish nationality hence my disdain at so many official bodies needing it.

Banks ask for photographic ID and two proofs of address

MadsL

This first.

Originally Posted by MadsL
Wut? Go try getting a mortgage,
You admit this one?
a social security card
Wrong country.,
You have to stay in Ireland? News to me.
a bank account
Not necessary, as above.
If you have no passport, or drivers licence it may be required.
Any bank claiming it as a requirement is lying and should be challenged.,
Because it is each individual institution's fault, not the document, very logical.

a job
Wrong. "Some" jobs, as before, and said jobs should not ask for it.,
So, err, Right then.


You accept these then.
an American visa,
a marriage,

a scholarship
Where? Name the institution. What type of scholarship?
Harvard do you?
Scholarships based on ancestry

A genealogical study completed by an accredited or certified genealogist and a birth certificate are required.

http://www.scholarship.harvard.edu/documentation.html
a driving licence,
Not contesting this?
an online share trading account
Got one. Didn't need one.
Wait until you withdraw large sums.
Any share trader claiming they need your birth cert to establish identity is lying.,
Criminal Justice (Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing) Act 2010.

adopting a child
State business.
So what, still have to use it.

Deed poll recepients would have the same issue with differences in name. Why would transgendered people be excluded?
Sorry, what? This makes no sense.

, a mature student placement
Name the institution. I know mature students.
All institutions.
You need to prove your age. How do you do that with neither passport, nor driving licence.

a residence permit
Residence where? In another country?
Yes. US green card for instance.
, an age card,
You accept this then.
a pension
I have one, wasn't asked for a birth cert.
You may be asked for proof of age on drawing a state pension or a private one.

So plenty of example, yet you are still fighting this.

MadsL

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

You are repeatedly either lying (I'm fed up giving you the benefit of the doubt) throughout this comment, or attempting to re-introduce already discredited scenarios where you claim someone is "always" asked for a birth cert when either they aren't, or just as importantly shouldn't be.

Lying? Do we have to have everything nailed down with six proof before you will accept that sometimes people need to use their birth cert??
This is getting boring and ridiculous.

No I'm not. It's an important point. The issue of banks or employers asking for unnecessary documentation affects far more people than the transgendered. It is not a "legal requirement" at all, as some posters, and especially you, like to make out. They should be challenged on the subject.

Completely separate issue. A bugbear for you clearly, but not the point.

Do you change countries a lot?
Yes, my fourth at the moment.

Other countries are entitled to decide whether or not to let someone become a resident in their state. They can use any criteria they like to do so.

Including a birth cert, the US for example.

Countries generally frown upon people who fabricate or falsify evidence about their identity. In this case, asking for a Birth Cert is entirely reasonable.

The rest of Europe and the US reissue the birth cert, no-one is falsifying anything. That's a huge strawman you refuse to give up.

Falls into the category of "state business" which is what a Birth Cert is for.

So countries should be privy to one person's medical history but not anothers?

So Dr Foy was born female, and did not have gender reassignment surgery? Hold on..... Nope. Having a certificate altered so that it says "this person was born Gender A" when they were born Gender B is nothing else except a falsification of the truth. Whether or not you believe it is a justifiable falsification of the truth is another matter entirely.

It is certainly not a "correction".

What a monstrous misrepresentation. Is the UK "falsifying" birth certs then?

Explain why a deed poll serves the same purpose for changes of name, and why no change is required to a Birth Cert in that circumstance. Merely expand the remit of Deed polls to genders as well as names and your problem is solved with no need for amended birth certs.

Changing your name is quite a different matter to changing your sex.

How is privacy an issue here? If privacy is really an issue, you should be pushing for fewer places to request a birth cert at all. As I've proven, they don't need to.

Of course it is an issue. You want someone showing obviously opposite secondary sex characteristics to have to present the opposite birth cert.
That's not just an issue, it is cruel.

On the one hand, you're requesting "privacy" for people, and on the other "the dignity of global recognition".... which is it? Is a passport not a document providing "global recognition"? Do you bring your birth cert on holiday with you?

Privacy for their medical history. Trans people are the only people for whom part of their medical history is a public record.

Or are we getting to the truth of the matter? That what you are advocating has nothing to do with administrative matters, and is solely to do with the ability of a transgendered individual to claim that their gender has not changed through the course of their life when, in fact, it has.

I'm arguing for dignity and respect - both of the trans and also the rule of law - the Irish State has been shown to be legally in the wrong. You want to maintain some sort of OCD "truth" about someone else's life. For what purpose you are utterly unable to describe.

As I've pointed out, that is an entirely different discussion. If you're prepared to admit that that IS your position, then say so. Don't hide behind flimsy excuses about how it would make it easier down at the credit union.

Sorry??? My position is clear. The Irish State needs to abide by the rule of law and allow Dr Foy her legal right. Every other EU State has NO quibble. Ireland is frankly being a prick.

I'll cut this part off here as discussions about motor tax are about as diversionary and irrelevant as it's possible to get.

You asked for an explanation, you got one.

One quick example. Like I said, the burden of proof is on you, because you claim a change to the system is "necessary". So far, you haven't provided any argument that can't be quickly and easily dismissed, or accommodated without changing birth certificates.

No it isn't. The proof has already been decided in a court of law. You are arguing that Ireland should continue to ignore the court's ruling. So it is up to you to explain whose interests are served and why.

You haven't, other than "Everyone asks for them". Which I've quite thoroughly discredited, above.

You have discredited nothing, please stop with this charade.

That's it exactly. In that scenario, your gender has changed. Yet you advocate changing the historical record to pretend that it hasn't. Why would you feel that would be necessary? Is being transgendered something to be ashamed of? To be hidden?

I see, now you want to shame the transgendered.
Article 8 of the ECHR details the right to privacy. Please show me how NOT changing this record is in the
"interests of national security", NO
"public safety" NO
"or the economic well-being of the country" NO
" for the prevention of disorder or crime" NO
"for the protection of health or morals" NO
"for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others." NO.

The court also decided NO.

Back to nitpicking administrative points, your birth cert is a reflection of State records. The records belong to the state just as much as they do to you.

Then write "sex change" on a card against the name of the person, and lock it in a box. Record kept. The State may look at it (Ahh, there it is) and the person. None of anybody else's damn business.

I dispute that it's at all necessary, and I dispute that the putative reasons given for its necessity are even true. I think it is simply the case that a person who has changed gender wants to have an official document that allows them to deny that this change ever took place.

I see, you don't want it to happen in case someone somewhere "denies" it.
Under what circumstances would that be?

On the contrary, I don't. Which is why I advocate attacking any bank or employer that asks for medical records, birth certificates, or any other personal information without a legally justifiable reason. And again, why is this a "medical record"? Legally, it is a change of identity in a manner similar to a change of name. One step further, but the same basic principle.

Did a bank upset you once?
Medical I have already explained.

Against the insurance companies? Now you've lost me.

No. I'm explaining the problems in getting individual companies compliance with data protection law for example. Dr Foy should not have to be a trans champion at every bank.

I've been quite clear that I don't approve of changing the historical record to suit someone's change of identity later on in life. I think you are trying to imply that my "true colours" are that I either disapprove of transgenderism, or am in some way prejudiced against them. I've already stated it does not affect my life one jot if someone wants to change their identity. People should be free to live, marry, and love however they want.

Except transgendered people are actively prevented from doing so by Irelands failure to follow the law. :mad:

I'm not posturing, I'm merely taking up a position you don't agree with. Suggesting that a person who has changed identity needs to have the historical record expunged so that they can pretend their identity has not changed seems absurd. You're welcome to argue why that's not the case of course. As I've stated, I believe it would be better to combat discrimination and prejudice by not hiding these matters, and by forcing those who are prejudiced and using discrimination out into the open so they can be soundly defeated. All this case does is hide the matter away.

No, as I have explained over and over, it gives privacy. Very different.

"State spite"? The state has a lot of things on its plate with relation to how it treats its citizens. On this matter, I think it is reasonable to suggest that there is no reason to change a birth certificate because it is not the case that the gender recorded at birth was recorded "incorrectly".

Here's a reason. The law requires it. Now explain to me how the Irish State is above European law.

As to suggesting that "lying" is emotive language, I simply state:
If I was born Gender A, and change to Gender B, that is a fact.
Having a document changed to indicate that I was born Gender A is a falsification. Telling the world that the change didn't happen is a lie.

No, it is a mechanism to protect you from being forced to tell the world you were born Gender A.

The fact that you find that emotive is nothing to do with the facts as laid out. As before, either you are of the opinion that it is a justifiable lie, or you are not. But it is still a lie.

By that basis the Guildford Four should retain their criminal records, as to say they had never been convicted of a crime would be a "lie".

Your absolutism is quite odd.

Slutmonkey57b

MadsL wrote: »

This first.

Originally Posted by MadsL
Wut? Go try getting a mortgage,
You admit this one?
a social security card
Wrong country.,
You have to stay in Ireland? News to me.
a bank account
Not necessary, as above.
If you have no passport, or drivers licence it may be required.
Any bank claiming it as a requirement is lying and should be challenged.,
Because it is each individual institution's fault, not the document, very logical.

a job
Wrong. "Some" jobs, as before, and said jobs should not ask for it.,
So, err, Right then.


You accept these then.
an American visa,
a marriage,

a scholarship
Where? Name the institution. What type of scholarship?
Harvard do you?
Scholarships based on ancestry

http://www.scholarship.harvard.edu/documentation.html
a driving licence,
Not contesting this?
an online share trading account
Got one. Didn't need one.
Wait until you withdraw large sums.
Any share trader claiming they need your birth cert to establish identity is lying.,
Criminal Justice (Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing) Act 2010.

adopting a child
State business.
So what, still have to use it.

Deed poll recepients would have the same issue with differences in name. Why would transgendered people be excluded?
Sorry, what? This makes no sense.

, a mature student placement
Name the institution. I know mature students.
All institutions.
You need to prove your age. How do you do that with neither passport, nor driving licence.

a residence permit
Residence where? In another country?
Yes. US green card for instance.
, an age card,
You accept this then.
a pension
I have one, wasn't asked for a birth cert.
You may be asked for proof of age on drawing a state pension or a private one.

So plenty of example, yet you are still fighting this.

All of your non-state examples fall into three categories:
1) "Errr.... well... you need one if you don't have any other proof". Why on earth would you have no other proof of identity or address? Yet, you consistantly claim that the Birth Cert is the first port of call. Wrong. You're doing this to attempt to prove that the Birth Cert is asked for on a regular basis.
2) "Birth Cert doesn't match other documents procured after the change of identity". Applies to anyone who changed their name by Deed Poll too. Still no explanation why transgendered people should get a free pass on this one and subjects of a name-only deed poll should not.
3) "Did I say every bank/employer/institution? Errrr... I meant "some"." More than once I've disproved the assertion that "banks" or "employers" all, en masse, require every employee/applicant in every part of ireland to provide a birth certificate. Yet you go quiet and then attempt to re-introduce the blanket nonsense like "a job" requires you to have a birth cert later on when you think I've forgotten.

The section you're looking for in the linked legislation, by the way, is

identifying the customer, and verifying the customer’s
identity on the basis of documents (whether or not in
electronic form), or information, that the designated per-
son has reasonable grounds to believe can be relied upon
to confirm the identity of the customer

Nothing in there that a Birth Cert is either the only "requirement", or indeed that it is the first port of call.

MadsL

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

All of your non-state examples fall into three categories:
1) "Errr.... well... you need one if you don't have any other proof". Why on earth would you have no other proof of identity or address? Yet, you consistantly claim that the Birth Cert is the first port of call. Wrong. You're doing this to attempt to prove that the Birth Cert is asked for on a regular basis.

It is the default base identity document. You can get a passport and a drivers licence with it. Neither a passport nor a drivers licence is mandatory in Ireland. Both require fees to be aid.

2) "Birth Cert doesn't match other documents procured after the change of identity". Applies to anyone who changed their name by Deed Poll too. Still no explanation why transgendered people should get a free pass on this one and subjects of a name-only deed poll should not.

Then include them. I have no objection. It is you objecting.

3) "Did I say every bank/employer/institution? Errrr... I meant "some"." More than once I've disproved the assertion that "banks" or "employers" all, en masse, require every employee/applicant in every part of ireland to provide a birth certificate. Yet you go quiet and then attempt to re-introduce the blanket nonsense like "a job" requires you to have a birth cert later on when you think I've forgotten.

You have disproved nothing frankly, other than how long you can keep this nonsense on the boil as it distracts from the legal basis for Dr Foy's case.

The section you're looking for in the linked legislation, by the way, is

Nothing in there that a Birth Cert is either the only "requirement", or indeed that it is the first port of call.

But it is the default document if you have neither passport nor drivers license. Or is there another???


I see you glossed over the Scholarship one.

j1smithy

MadsL wrote: »

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.

You do know there is a difference between sex and gender right?

MadsL

j1smithy wrote: »

You do know there is a difference between sex and gender right?

That's the heart of this issue.

MadsL

I tell you what Slutmonkey instead of all this back and forth, if the Birth Certificate is so unimportant and trivial in this day and age, post a video of you burning yours.

j1smithy

MadsL wrote: »

That's the heart of this issue.

Sex is a scientific fact, while gender is a state of mind, though highly influenced by the chemistry of your make up. Only sex is recorded at birth, based on the presence of chromosomes. Gender although related is more subtle, flexible and less understood.

In order to get out of this quandary perhaps we should record both sex and gender on official documents?

MadsL

j1smithy wrote: »

Sex is a scientific fact, while gender is a state of mind. Only sex is recorded at birth, based on the presence of chromosomes. Gender although related is more subtle, flexible and less understood.

In order to get out of this quandary perhaps we should record both sex and gender on official documents?

Or we could do what the rest of Europe and the US do and reissue the things and stop making a fuss?

Just a thought.

j1smithy

MadsL wrote: »

Or we could do what the rest of Europe and the US do and reissue the things and stop making a fuss?

Just a thought.

A birth certificate is a statement of scientific fact at the time birth. Its sex thats recorded not gender.

MadsL

j1smithy wrote: »

A birth certificate is a statement of scientific fact at the time birth. Its sex thats recorded not gender.

Tell me how the registrar checks this "scientific" fact other than to record the details the parents give?

You have a form issued to you by the hospital.

You can't just land at a registry office with a cabbage patch kid in a buggy anytime you want.

Slutmonkey57b

I was going to get further into a nitpick about what points you've made about documentation, what validity they have, and why you're doing it, but it's tiresome and you're clearly not going to listen.

However, your final post indicates that you are finally getting towards the truth of your position, away from the issue of acceptance of the Birth Cert itself. You're also trying desperately to insinuate that I am in some way prejudiced against Transgendered people. I'm not. Nor do I dispute that the state has an obligation to obey the law, or have I suggested at any point that it should not implement the ruling.

My question is this:
If you were born Gender A, and later in life change to Gender B, what does that mean for you? What does changing your birth certificate, fundamentally, achieve? Does it make you not a Trans person? Does it mean that actually, all along, you were Gender B, and that no change took place? That you didn't face any struggles or difficulties with that? Does it mean that a Trans person goes through a similar biological, psychological, and emotional journey to a person who only ever identifies as the gender they were born into? Does it feel like something you should need to hide from the world, in case they ever object?

Is it solely that it makes the administration of life a little more easy?

I can see why going through life without facing any questions of transgenderism would be far preferable to dealing every day with intolerance and prejudice. However, by taking measures such as this one, the issue is simply hidden. Instead of transgenderism being brought out into the open where it belongs, it goes back underground. How does that help the world? "Easy for you to say, you don't have to face it." Well, that's true. But transgendered people are not the first to face this struggle. In the past, people have been forced to overcome exploitation, denigration, or pariah status in society because of their gender, or their race, or their religion, or who they chose to marry.

Those people may still have some way to go in many parts of the world. In parts of the world where it is physically or mortally dangerous to be different it may well be preferable to be hidden. But no progress comes until the time when they are able, either on their own or with the support of other parts of society, to stand forward and say "I am This. This is normal. There is nothing wrong.".

This judgement may help Dr Foy with her birth cert. But I don't believe that it helps the other matter. And I believe that it is an ultimately misguided denial of an entirely reasonable truth to do this. It is a step backwards.