Another trans thing - the changing of birth certificates...

[MacaroonMama]

Hello All,
I think I have only just realised that along with a GRC comes a new birth certificate in the 'acquired [sex/gender/whatever they think is correct]'. Is that right? Has that been the case since 2004?
It just bothered me a bit because I thought that a birth certificate is a legal document, and, really changing the sex of the baby is telling a lie, isn't it?
The usual caveat here of: I have much sympathy for those with gender dysphoria and cannot imagine it - I totally understand why this is given to them, so that other documents reliant on a birth certificate are able to be obtained, but it sits very oddly with me. Like forging documents.
I have just spoken to my cousin who adopted a little one last year, and she said that when the adoption was completed, they got a new long birth certificate for their new child, in which she and her husband were named as the parents. So again, amendments made. But she wasn't sure what happened to the original, she thought perhaps it is kept but sealed?
Not really sure why I am asking really. I know those with a GRC are those with gender dysphoria, which must be such a difficult condition to struggle with, so I would never want to make life any more difficult. It just feels strange.
Will those who self-ID be able to get a new birth certificate? Because then we will not have an accurate picture of the past, will we?
Sorry - just musing while waiting for the Scottish consultation doc to load! Any and all thoughts welcome. And to share of course xx

One TIM found that airport security has a problem if you say you are female, are scanned as one, and you still have a penis (apologises for DM link, but they are the ones that best showed the content of some of the live tweets he did) www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3244731/Transgender-woman-details-ordeal-TSA-went-female-line-bodyscanner-picked-anomaly.html.

Also, problems with saying you're male, but have female anatomy www.out.com/news-opinion/2017/3/13/transgender-plane-tsas-problematic-new-universal-pat-down.

In both stories, the scanning system is blamed, not the fact that men don't have female anatomy, and women don't have male anatomy.

FloraFox I think I am coming to the same conclusion as you about the GRA. It's opened a can of worms to admit someone as legally something they are biologically and factually not, whatever the good intention at the time.

Those stories make my mind boogle.

Scanners don't care what your gender is. They are programmed on the basis of biology. Thats kind of an issue if you are in denial about the difference between gender and sex.

Also what do they think the purpose of security is? Of course if you are binding your breasts this going to be a problem that you are going to have to proactively declare. Thats not discrimination. Thats cos you could be hiding something.

Maybe cases could be handled better but understanding the difficulty security is going to have with conflating sex and gender is not an issue about discrimination. Its about how do you ensure a passenger isnt concealling contraband. You can't be given a free pass to bypass security. Especially if self identification comes in.

Its only after you get a terrorist posing as trans, that the penny might drop. By which point you have a backlash against those who demanded exemption from security.

Maybe I'm missing something, but this is like going to the doctors. The doctor isnt going to treat your body as your gender regardless of what pronouns they use.

In both stories, the scanning system is blamed, not the fact that men don't have female anatomy, and women don't have male anatomy.

Idiotic.

If you visit the UK Houses of Parliament there is a building in which your security pat down options are queue one for men, in which male people with penises are patted down by a male person with a penis, and queue two, in which female people with vaginas are patted down by a male person who was born with a penis.

The officer in queue two believes (wrongly) that what matters is his brain being the same as the women (it isn't), rather than their right of the women to have someone female touch them.

If women don't submit to pretending that a man's feelings trumps their rights, they don't get access to part of our democratic institution. That blows my mind.

Ultimately this is a brutal clash of rights.

The right of a male to insist he is the same as me; a female.
vs
The right of me, a female to insist I am NOT the same as him, the male.

I can support my claim with incontrovertible evidence. He cannot. But he wins anyway.

Until this principle and conflict between sex and gender is brought to the courts and tested fairly, society is universally granting default superior rights to whoever was born with the penis.

Thus his right to assert a lie trumps my right to assert a truth.

THAT is penis power.

Interesting in the patient number used by NHS Scotland the CHI number has a digit to indicate gender at birth (odds versus even numbers). It could be open to error if a trans person moved in adulthood but for medical reasons this is very useful. Hopefully this isn’t targeted as misgendering.

You mean sex at birth.

I can support my claim with incontrovertible evidence. He cannot. But he wins anyway.

That, more than all the rest, is what I find so utterly vexing.

I thought with adoption you just get an adoption certificate?
And the original certificate is still available for when the child is older as it has birth parents on etc.

@OlennasWimple
What do you use then to not revile her adoption status if you don't use adoption Cert?

This is just a fiasco. I wish we'd just drop the whole notion of gender (apart from in grammar) as it's made up nonsense which is causing confusion. We don't need gender, just biological sex which is binary and fixed. Wear what you want, take whatever name you want, marry whomever you want, identify however you choose but your sex cannot change either on your birth certificate or otherwise.

I think the "live and let live" is what society should be aiming for. But it's we women who have mostly had that view, and these days it's not doing us any good. In fact, it's doing us harm.

There were times back in history, and even within my own lifetime, when men wore flamboyant clothing and make-up, but were still men.

I really don't understand how it's all changed. As an old woman, I now feel even more threatened. I had thought all those times of being harassed and dominated by men were long gone because, obviously, I've mostly become invisible.

But if the change to documentation goes down as far as changing sex on a birth certificate, then there's no guarantee that a hospital can provide a female HCP for a woman. Because it's the birth certificate (paperwork) that counts, not the perception of maleness. And, yes, women are pretty good at recognising who is male.

I know it's not the same thing but I changed my name by deed poll and I have a deed poll certificate. I have to show my deed poll certificate and my original birth certificate when I apply for a passport and other official things. I would imagine someone changing their gender would do the same.

I can support my claim with incontrovertible evidence. He cannot. But he wins anyway.

This is basically it, isn't it.

Greenseablue - the short birth certificate (which has DD's post-adoption name on it, with the details of where and when she was born) is sufficient for most purposes. Now she has a passport in her post-adoption name, that is also fine for most circumstances. It's very unusual to need to produce the long certificate for anything other than formal applications, like visas or passport applications, in which case that's obviously what we use. But for proving to the Girl Guides or the swimming team how old she is, the short certificate is sufficient