The right to change personal information on a document issued by the government

Found it. Not horoscope related but preferring a 2021 birthdate than 2020.
Still a d!

https://amp.heart.co.uk/lifestyle/man-tries-to-change-his-newborn-babys-birthday/

I think it's interesting that, as far as I know, no mother has ever challenged their child making changes to their birth certificate. I mean I can understand they don't want to upset their child or rock the boat. But that birth certificate represents a mother's lived experience of giving birth to a child of a particular sex on a particular date. Very possibly choosing a name that tends to be used exclusively for one sex or the other. Birthdays. Clothes possibly chosen based on birth sex.

I don't have the experience of having a child that wanted to make these sorts of changes, and I have no doubt that a mother stepping in to object would cause massive ructions. But I think I would object nonetheless - why should my lives experience be erased? I wouldn't have it. And of course if any mother had objected in the early days of this legislation we might not be where we are.

Somewhat different scenario but I did see something recently about a new father being a massive d* and causing ructions in the labour ward as the baby had been born late in the evening and he wanted the midwife to change the birth notification to early the next morning giving the baby a different birthday. Can't remember why. Possibly related to horoscopes

[quote Aha85]Didn't the European Court of Human Rights have some influence on the change in UK law that led to the GRA?

Yep, and unfortunately the ECtHR thought that there wasn't any real difference between a post-op transwoman and a woman apart from chromosomes, and blah blah blah let's bring intersex women into this to muddy the waters

"82. While it also remains the case that a transsexual cannot acquire all the biological characteristics of the assigned sex (Sheffield and Horsham, cited above, p. 2028, § 56), the Court notes that with increasingly sophisticated surgery and types of hormonal treatments, the principal unchanging biological aspect of gender identity is the chromosomal element. It is known however that chromosomal anomalies may arise naturally (for example, in cases of intersex conditions where the biological criteria at birth are not congruent) and in those cases, some persons have to be assigned to one sex or the other as seems most appropriate in the circumstances of the individual case. It is not apparent to the Court that the chromosomal element, amongst all the others, must inevitably take on decisive significance for the purposes of legal attribution of gender identity for transsexuals (see the dissenting opinion of Thorpe LJ in Bellinger v. Bellinger cited in paragraph 52 above; and the judgment of Chisholm J in the Australian case, Re Kevin, cited in paragraph 55 above)."

www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2002/588.html[/quote]
Isn’t sex determined at birth, and defined by chromosomes?

In most cases, yes. But chromosomes are not always an accurate predictor of gender, and there are many possible variations and anomalies, as Lord Winston explained to the House of Lords (Lords Hansard 3 Feb 2004 : Column 619). Transsexual people are amongst the small minority whose medical circumstances do not neatly fit the notion of chromosomal determinism.

This is what MPs were told. Bit of a sleight of hand in equating transsexuals and people with DSDs. None of it entirely incorrect and a lot of smoke and mirrors.

@Aha85

How people don't see that as "woman = man without penis" and is highly offensive is beyond me.

I'm probably being thick here but self ID hasn't become las yet had it, at least not in England?

Didn't the European Court of Human Rights have some influence on the change in UK law that led to the GRA?

Yep, and unfortunately the ECtHR thought that there wasn't any real difference between a post-op transwoman and a woman apart from chromosomes, and blah blah blah let's bring intersex women into this to muddy the waters

"82. While it also remains the case that a transsexual cannot acquire all the biological characteristics of the assigned sex (Sheffield and Horsham, cited above, p. 2028, § 56), the Court notes that with increasingly sophisticated surgery and types of hormonal treatments, the principal unchanging biological aspect of gender identity is the chromosomal element. It is known however that chromosomal anomalies may arise naturally (for example, in cases of intersex conditions where the biological criteria at birth are not congruent) and in those cases, some persons have to be assigned to one sex or the other as seems most appropriate in the circumstances of the individual case. It is not apparent to the Court that the chromosomal element, amongst all the others, must inevitably take on decisive significance for the purposes of legal attribution of gender identity for transsexuals (see the dissenting opinion of Thorpe LJ in Bellinger v. Bellinger cited in paragraph 52 above; and the judgment of Chisholm J in the Australian case, Re Kevin, cited in paragraph 55 above)."

www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2002/588.html

An element of the emperor's New clothes there as well. ^^

It's all just a gigantic game of Mornington Crescent.

The willing players expect everyone else to participate and be convincing about it.

Anyone refusing, or deciding it's a rubbish game with no rules makes the players look stupid, condescending and smug. The point of the game is to show you are in and you are superior and others are not.

"I'm pretending that there are rules, and I that I understand them. You feel annoyed because you don't know the rules and I won't explain them. You can't seem to work out the rules but I'm behaving as if there are definitely rules behind this game, so you persevere, getting more frustrated. The truth is that there aren't any rules, but I won't tell you this. I'll just pretend there are and you'll think you're too stupid to have worked them out yet. You'll only start to have fun when you realise this and play along too, pretending that the penny has dropped for you, and keeping up the pretence to others. You'll then feel smug that you're in on the charade, one of the team, in the know. It's all a farce, and we're all pretending together, that's the entire point."

Yes you can almost see the penny drop with them both tbh

I think he answers the questions perfectly exposes exposes flaws in the thinking so clearly whilst simultaneously making a good case

The look on the faces after is priceless

What's fascinating about that clip is watching Victoria Derbyshire, a fully paid up KoolAid drinker and often unpleasant member of the 'because I say so" club.

She knows that one impossible identity is 'allowable' and the other is not. She's actively bristling at her own cognitive dissonance. She's accepted one ludicrous claim and rejects the other and all her offended rebuttals don't make sense. The two situations are very analogous. She's accepted the first because she's accepted that material sex is evil/imaginary gender replaces it and is good. She knows that's what she's compelled to believe. Noone has yet normalised the concept that other material realities are evil and must be replaced by an imaginary facsimile. She's been told 'these rules apply to sex but to nothing else' and she knows her role is not to understand why but to just accept.

It makes her angry.

This makes me wonder. It isn't just that the new rules are deny reality/accept the replacement.

It's that there are people - other people, not her- who decide the rules and when they do or don't apply and it doesn't need to make sense.

It's that these "suspend reality" rules will apply in only the characteristics that are determined by authority, and NOT in others. It's that seeking to understand why the principle makes sense on one but not the other is wrong. You are not meant to understand. It's disconcerting to see that the rules don't make sense and you were never supposed to demand that rules did.

The end game is to have people willingly forfeit their right to understand for themselves, and to accept that obedience is better than understanding.
People are required to willingly agree not to question or understand, but to wait to be told what is true and what is not. It's to accept that reality is what some other authority has determined it is and it is not for the little people to understand or question.

It's like a psyops exercise where you are rewarded or punished at random and the objective is to stop you even trying to understand the rules because it doesn't make sense. The only rule you are being trained to accept is 'unthinkingly obey'.

Call me old fashioned, but nobody should ever be legally allowed to change their birth date or their sex marker on an official document.

Yeah its the first one

This Dutch guy?

And there's this one (might be the same as the pictures article above)

www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-england-bristol-55659423

The second case is more complicated as he believes that the home office "re-aged" him and that he was always the age he believes that he is. It's meant that when he applies to jobs he has to state a date of birth that he believes is wrong. His whole identity is thus being challenged by a date of birth that is not "his".

The first guys in Holland knows that he's not really the age on his birth certificate, but just feels younger and believes that he is subject to age discrimination.

There have been threads here about birth certificates and the importance of not amending them (except in the case of egregious error) because they're a gateway to registration and human rights.

It has been ova in that one case where the person wanted their child's birth certificate to basically claim they had no mother.

I dont know how ones ok but thr other not its bizarre

The same reasoning used in that article are essentially the same as that used for changing sex on govt documents. It would be interesting to see a TRA argue why changing one but not the other is permitted.