nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Lydia Foy, he-she: had privacy breached because her birth-cert says she's a dude

Dave!

Hey folks,

I fully support the boards.ie After Hours Regeneration Scheme, and so I'm doing what I can to enhance the content of said forum. I think it's entirely appropriate, therefore, to discuss this landmark High Court ruling.

By way of background, I'll copy and paste a bit from an article....

Dr Lydia Foy, a dentist from Kildare was born a male but underwent a sex change operation in 1992.

Ms Foy started legal proceedings to have her new gender recognised on her birth cert but in 2002 the High Court refused her application to have her birth cert altered.

Lydia Foy took fresh proceedings looking for a new birth cert and a declaration that the birth cert system here is incompatible with the convention if it prevents her registration as a female.

And now today there has been a ruling...

Today Mr Justice McKechnie said he hadn't the power to guarantee her a new birth cert but he did say that the birth cert system constitutes a breach of her right to privacy under the convention.
http://www.independent.ie/breaking-news/national-news/state-found-to-be-in-breach-of-european-convention-in-regard-to-sex-change-law-1200106.html

So I'm looking for opinions on this

Personally I don't feel too strongly about it... I mean, at the end of the day I don't forsee it leading to many problems down the line. But at the same time, I can't help but think it's ridiculous to expect a historical document, as the birth cert is, to be changed retrospectively. Dr Foy was born a dude, and no amount of revisionism changes that.

Her legal representative (I think) was on the Right Hook talking about how the birth cert only says that she was born a male physically, but doesn't refer to her psychological gender :rolleyes: Gimme a break. I wonder if I requested to have a document changed to indicate that I was in fact born an ostrich, would the court hear me out? Doubtful.

But the High Court has ruled, and apparantly we are one of only 2 EU countries that does not cater for transgender people.

As I say, I don't really care, it just seems silly. But if it makes Dr Foy happy, meh.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Dizzyblonde

I don't think she wants the original birth cert changed, just a new one issued that says she's female now. Where's the harm? It's not as if he/she can change his/her mind again.
I just think it's such a pity someone has to suffer this indignity for something they can't help - it's not a choice.
He/she must suffer stares and abuse almost daily as it is. I'm just trying to see it from his/her perspective.

Dizzyblonde

moco wrote: »

He/she would be able to get a passport as a female without her birth cert being changed.

Really? I didn't think that was possible.

moco

Dizzyblonde wrote: »

I don't think she wants the original birth cert changed, just a new one issued that says she's female now. Where's the harm? It's not as if he/she can change his/her mind again.
I just think it's such a pity someone has to suffer this indignity for something they can't help - it's not a choice.
He/she must suffer stares and abuse almost daily as it is. I'm just trying to see it from his/her perspective.

Well because a birth certificate records a birth, ie Moco was born a female in ....place on ....date. Changing that isn't reflecting the event. The past can't be changed, but I can see an argument for adding to the birth certificate that the sex has been changed.

[Deleted User]

A birth cert is a certificate of your birth. Why issue one at the age of 50 or whatever? Some sort of official government ID document fine .. what about a page stamped by a priest? (I never understood why local priests could vett id .. but there you have it).

The whole thing is nonsense.

moco

Dizzyblonde wrote: »

Really? I didn't think that was possible.

Yea, you need a letter from the surgeon stating that they performed the operation and it's irreversible, a psychiatrists report saying you're of sound mind, your birth cert (just to establish citizenship) and change of name deed poll.

Zaph

Dizzyblonde wrote: »

Really? I didn't think that was possible.

On the radio this evening they said that Foy had been issued with a new passport, driving licence and tax records as a woman. They said it was an administrative decision to do so and so presumably had nothing to do with any legal rights. That said, I'm with Terry, the first thing I thought of was no matter how she feels, genetically she's still a man and no amount of surgery can change that.

Dizzyblonde

moco wrote: »

Yea, you need a letter from the surgeon stating that they performed the operation and it's irreversible, a psychiatrists report saying you're of sound mind, your birth cert (just to establish citizenship) and change of name deed poll.

Well in that case I wonder why he/she's going to this trouble. I thought it was to get a passport as a female and cut out the hassle.
It doesn't seem worth it, maybe after the surgery etc he/she still doesn't feel female without the documentation? I still think it's sad, whatever the reason, and sad for his kids too.

moco

zaph wrote: »

On the radio this evening they said that Foy had been issued with a new passport, driving licence and tax records as a woman. They said it was an administrative decision to do so and so presumably had nothing to do with any legal rights. That said, I'm with Terry, the first thing I thought of was no matter how she feels, genetically she's still a man and no amount of surgery can change that.

I agree..

Dizzyblonde

moco wrote: »

I agree..

Me too of course, that can't be changed, but what a conflict. It must be awful to feel you're in the wrong body. I wonder does the surgery lead to a happy ending, I'm not so sure. There was a case of a man in the UK a couple of years ago who was suing the doctor who'd performed his surgery because he'd changed his mind and felt it shouldn't have been done!!

Mark63

If she does have a passport/driving license and is issued to her as a woman, what's the problem? She can't cahnge the fact that she was born male and while I have no problem with the state facilitating her with regard to current documents, it seems crazy that there would be a High Court case to change her birth cert after all these years.

Off topic I know but if it comes to light that a father listed on a birth cert isn't the actual father - does the Birth Cert get changed because of that?

Dave!

It was mentioned on Newstalk yesterday that the state facilitates new birth certs for adopted children to reflect their new parents... It's possible I misheard, but I coulda sworn that's what they said.

Anybody confirm this?

moco

Mark63 wrote: »

If she does have a passport/driving license and is issued to her as a woman, what's the problem? She can't cahnge the fact that she was born male and while I have no problem with the state facilitating her with regard to current documents, it seems crazy that there would be a High Court case to change her birth cert after all these years.

Off topic I know but if it comes to light that a father listed on a birth cert isn't the actual father - does the Birth Cert get changed because of that?

Yea, it can be changed to show a new fothar of add a father to the cert if there wasn't one in the first place.

moco

DaveMcG wrote: »

It was mentioned on Newstalk yesterday that the state facilitates new birth certs for adopted children to reflect their new parents... It's possible I misheard, but I coulda sworn that's what they said.

Anybody confirm this?

I don't think that's the case. A new cert is issused, an adoption cert which looks very like a birth cert and has the new parent's names on it.

Jesus Wept

Gender ruling ‘will give so much hope’ to people with condition

'“Most other European countries already respect the autonomy of transgendered people by ensuring that their birth certificates accurately record their new identities,”

Surely a birth cert records your identity at birth. I don't understand why a birth cert should altered. Issue transgender folk with a new cert of sorts.

It's called a birth cert, not a life cert.

gyppo

What a load of Bollocks, if you pardon the pun.

Whatever sex the person purports to be now is irrelevant wrt the sex they were born with.
Lydia, the reality is you were born with a pair of liathroidi and assosiated undercarraige, which made you a male at birth - so why try and change a birth cert which was accurate at the time of your birth.

Scoobydoobydoo

Dizzyblonde wrote: »

There was a case of a man in the UK a couple of years ago who was suing the doctor who'd performed his surgery because he'd changed his mind and felt it shouldn't have been done!!

That's crazy, you can't go around changing your mind, willy nilly like that!;)

Karl Hungus wrote: »

In fairness, there's female brain chemistry and other such stuff, so the psychological gender is a very real thing.

Ah come on now, it probably just needed a stronger male role model in its life growing up

Nevyn

Terry wrote: »

Y chromosome.
That is all.

The physical changes to the foetus if it has a Y chromosome only happen at 5 months and there are people who have the Y chromosome and those changes never happen and they are born female, so you premise there is faulty.

A new birth cert means she can get a passport which will say female and that she can get married to a male.

Yes she cant' change the fact she was born male but that is not how she lives and her records should reflect that the fact she did have gender reassignment surgery should not be at the privy of every civil servant she has to deal with or
the officals in other country.

Agamemnon

Thaedydal wrote: »

A new birth cert means she can get a passport which will say female and that she can get married to a male.

So why not change the rules so that, in these cases, a passport isn't dependent on a birth cert? Trying to change a birth cert is a daft effort to rewrite personal history.

humbert

Do you have a link describing how someone with a Y chromosome can be born female?

I don't think the fact that it's affects dont kick in until the five month mark is significant.

However I do think in this case such personal info should not be available from a birth cert.

Dalfiatach

rbd wrote: »

where is this brain chemistry
can we see it

Sorry. Couldn't resist. Carry on.

Terry

Thaedydal wrote: »

The physical changes to the foetus if it has a Y chromosome only happen at 5 months and there are people who have the Y chromosome and those changes never happen and they are born female, so you premise there is faulty.

A new birth cert means she can get a passport which will say female and that she can get married to a male.

Yes she cant' change the fact she was born male but that is not how she lives and her records should reflect that the fact she did have gender reassignment surgery should not be at the privy of every civil servant she has to deal with or
the officals in other country.

5 months?
That's about 24 weeks, yes?

Screw it./ I'm tired.
I'll get back to this in the morning with some video evidence.
I need to convert the format and I'm too tired to do it now.

Sangre

I'll reserve judgement on this until I actually read the ruling. Which I'm sure everyone else here has done already.

The_Minister

Scoobydoobydoo wrote: »

That's crazy, you can't go around changing your mind, willy nilly like that!;)

you

As everyone says, it's a bit odd. Can't change the past.

Dave!

Sangre wrote: »

I'll reserve judgement on this until I actually read the ruling. Which I'm sure everyone else here has done already.

"Today Mr Justice McKechnie said he hadn't the power to guarantee her a new birth cert but he did say that the birth cert system constitutes a breach of her right to privacy under the [European convention on human rights, article 8]"

What else do you need to read, sunny jim?

Dalfiatach

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only time anyone ever asks for your Birth Cert is when applying for passports, right? And marriage, I suppose. I can't remember if I needed mine when applying for the old driving licence...but the driving licence doesn't have a "Sex" field on it anyway!

Mz Lydia apparently already has a passport issued as female, yes?

Therefore, nobody outside those two offices will ever be looking at her birth cert, and in both cases she would have to supply the supporting documentation to explain the name change anyway, and as far as anyone else is concerned in officialdom she's just a number like the rest of us.

So where is this issue of "privacy", exactly? It all seems very odd.

Sangre

DaveMcG wrote: »

"Today Mr Justice McKechnie said he hadn't the power to guarantee her a new birth cert but he did say that the birth cert system constitutes a breach of her right to privacy under the [European convention on human rights, article 8]"

What else do you need to read, sunny jim?

how exactly does it breach her right to privacy under Art. 8?

Dave!

Dalfiatach wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only time anyone ever asks for your Birth Cert is when applying for passports, right? And marriage, I suppose. I can't remember if I needed mine when applying for the old driving licence...but the driving licence doesn't have a "Sex" field on it anyway!

Mz Lydia apparently already has a passport issued as female, yes?

Therefore, nobody outside those two offices will ever be looking at her birth cert, and in both cases she would have to supply the supporting documentation to explain the name change anyway, and as far as anyone else is concerned in officialdom she's just a number like the rest of us.

So where is this issue of "privacy", exactly? It all seems very odd.

I think the word "privacy" is just a legal term, not in the sense you're thinking of. Not as in, s/he is being forced to tell people about her history, but rather that it's part of her PRIVATE life that she is a chick and not a dude, and not issuing her with a birth cert saying as much is a breach of her private life.

AFAIK the judge referred to article 8 of the ECOHR, which says:

1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

I'm not sure, but I presume that's what the judge was getting at...

edit: Oooh, could be wrong...

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/breaking/2007/1019/breaking49.htm
"The judge said blocking Dr Foy from making an alteration to the birth certificate had gone against rights set out in the Convention.

He said Dr Foy had suffered stress, humiliation, embarrassment and loss of dignity in dealing with her condition of gender identity disorder - well recognised by psychiatrists.

The judge said Dr Foy's right to privacy may be affected if she is imprisoned or faces insurance claims. She has managed to secure some official documents including a driving licence and a passport. The judge said, however, a birth certificate is considered a snapshot of time and historical record of fact. He told the High Court his judgment must be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas within five weeks and the issue addressed."

I don't know Sangre, but that's the ruling! You don't need to know the specifics of the ruling to comment on whether you think she should (not necessarily legally) be given a new birth cert

Dalfiatach

DaveMcG wrote: »

The judge said Dr Foy's right to privacy may be affected if she is imprisoned or faces insurance claims.

Wasn't that already decided in a case in Donegal about 8 years ago? Post-op trans-sexual was decreed to indeed be a woman for the purposes of imprisonment and should be sent to the women's wing. IIRC.

Edit: case was actually in Derry, the transsexual was from Donegal. Different jurisdiction. Ah well.

DaveMcG wrote: »

I don't know Sangre, but that's the ruling! You don't need to know the specifics of the ruling to comment on whether you think she should (not necessarily legally) be given a new birth cert

New birth cert is probably the wrong way to go because then there's no record of her ever having been a man, and that could cause additional chaos - imagine, say, you meet a nice girl and marry her all the while under the impression she was all woman cos her birth cert says so, only to eventually discover she used to be called Dave :eek:

There's no getting away from it, in some circumstances everyone involved has a right to know such things, or indeed has to know such things to do their job (i.e. checking citizenship in the passport office). An official "Gender Reassigned" cert sure, if it'll make the paperwork easier for these folks, but there needs to be a permanent record that Citizen X was originally born with a different gender. Ye can't be going re-writing history.

Reku

Thaedydal wrote: »

The physical changes to the foetus if it has a Y chromosome only happen at 5 months and there are people who have the Y chromosome and those changes never happen and they are born female, so you premise there is faulty.

But as soon a puberty hits they will begin to very much show as being male and fact is genetics is genetics, you can no more claim to be female when you have a Y than you can claim to be a caterpiller with 46 chromosomes.

Seriously hope (I am not advocating such before anyone starts planning) this does result in a fraud lawsuit against Dr. Foy for misleading a guy as to his (Dr. Foy's) gender just so future post ops will avoid this load of BS foolishness.
Then there's the whole issue of whether LYDIA Foy ever completed medical school should people wish to verify credentials?:rolleyes:

Dalfiatach wrote: »

Wasn't that already decided in a case in Donegal about 8 years ago? Post-op trans-sexual was decreed to indeed be a woman for the purposes of imprisonment and should be sent to the women's wing. IIRC.

Edit: case was actually in Derry, the transsexual was from Donegal. Different jurisdiction. Ah well.

Sounds reasonable, no complaints here.

Dalfiatach wrote: »

New birth cert is probably the wrong way to go because then there's no record of her ever having been a man, and that could cause additional chaos - imagine, say, you meet a nice girl and marry her all the while under the impression she was all woman cos her birth cert says so, only to eventually discover she used to be called Dave :eek:

Exactly what I've been saying, and does leave Lydia (and any others) open to fraud for lying and presenting misleading documentation. Whose to say they'd have to be guilty, they wouldn't be the first person to end up the victims of a bad breakup and their partner lying about them afterwards. Which also brings up how the right to privacy will deal with bad break-ups where the former partner makes it publicly known that they are a post op transvestite? Not like they can sue the former partner for slander or defamation now is it, as it's all true?

Dalfiatach wrote: »

There's no getting away from it, in some circumstances everyone involved has a right to know such things, or indeed has to know such things to do their job (i.e. checking citizenship in the passport office). An official "Gender Reassigned" cert sure, if it'll make the paperwork easier for these folks, but there needs to be a permanent record that Citizen X was originally born with a different gender. Ye can't be going re-writing history.

Gender re-assignment cert seems the only way to go since at least it's not trying to change the past just because we don't like what it says (if we're going to go that route lets all deny that the troubles up north ever happened FFS).