Man loses case to 'identify' as twenty years younger

[needmorespace]

here

Does this have any impact on the self-identity row?

No. Age dictates things we are allowed to do, when we need to be in school, when we can sign contracts, when we get pensions. Applicable to this case alone, it's also a good indicator of when we might die..... someone who is in their 40s still has about 40 years left. Someone in their 70s doesn't. So someone who is 45 needs to know the actual age of the person they are choosing ad their partner.

Obviously gender has it's own reasons for not slowing self ID, but the age thing is completely different given that age is used for making many many decisions.

Allowing age self ID and you could have a 14 year old claim they identify as an 18 year old if they have been groomed. Then their abuser can argue that, legally, the victim identified as 18 so no crime committed.

All the arguments applied to refuse him could equally be applied to gender identity.

Basically you're free to live any way you like and view yourself how you like, but not to falsify documentation in a way that messes with reality or to mess with a system that involves gatekept resources and services for particular groups in society.

So a bit tricky to explain why that's fine in one way for one group, but not ok for another. Which I suspect was probably the bloke's intent in the first place.

Allowing age self ID and you could have a 14 year old claim they identify as an 18 year old if they have been groomed. Then their abuser can argue that, legally, the victim identified as 18 so no crime committed.

Yeah. And obviously a male abuser would ever identify as a woman in order to gain access to female spaces and thus victims. No, that never happens.

On a council, government level... changing gender on documentation doesn't change much. Really just medical. But it doesn't affect benefits, access to housing, pension, paying tax, buying property, signing contracts, being allowed to drive, marry, drink, vote etc.

Age is tied to a lot of legal requirement. Gender isn't. So it's not the same. In a court, the role of your age us clear cut. The told of gender isn't.

@hackmum

Did I say that doesn't happen? No, I didn't.

But it's different. Legally it is different. And that's the issue. I'm not the courts, I'm not making the decisions, I'm just explaining why it's different and it will be hard to use this as a way to stop self ID for gender.

I wish we could. I'm not on the side of self ID. But legally, it's a different kettle of fish.

*If Mr Ratelband's request was allowed, those age requirements would become meaningless

'Mr. Ratelband is at liberty to feel 20 years younger than his real age and to act accordingly,' Arnhem court added said in a press statement.

'But amending his date of birth would cause 20 years of records to vanish from the register of births, deaths, marriages and registered partnerships. This would have a variety of undesirable legal and societal implications.'*

Therefore why is it legal to amend ones birth certificate and make years of records vanish?

I can't decide if this man is doing this to be deliberately allegorical and point at the problems with self ID and trans people
Or does he genuinely think he has a case?

But legally, it's a different kettle of fish.

Ah, OK. I thought you meant it was different as a matter of principle.

On a council, government level... changing gender on documentation doesn't change much. Really just medical

That's simply not true - if you don't know how many men and women exist, you have trouble doing all sorts of planning (no matter how mundane that sounds), from birthrates, and therefore school planning, to changing and toiletting facilities, hospital and GP services etc.

If you know that you have X women and Y men, you can plan for that. If you know you have A people who say they are women but might not be female, and B people who say they are men but might not be male, all of that planning goes out of the window.

It's a different thing. It would affect censuses; any census he was on would need to be updated. The census record sender of course, but it's main function is to count the population and spot trends of both decline etc. If loads of people change their ages, all that has to be changed and it messes the data.

You can scream and shout that it's the same, but it's not. You're biased because you don't want self ID. Neither do it. But she and gender have different legal implication and different affects on the system. They cause different issues. But agr is something the lawmakers can never allow to change as so many laws, regulations and systems rely on age.

But it doesn't affect benefits, access to housing, pension,...signing contracts, being allowed to drive, marry...

I thought before the pension age became equal, men legally identifying as women got their pension earlier?

Likewise marriage. Same-sex marriage wasn't allowed. Which is why identifying as the opposite sex suddenly made it possible.

The marriage contract is under threat. A spouse is going to have the terms of their contract change, if they are suddenly in a homosexual marriage, without their consent.

If a man Identifies as a woman, then suddenly all women's rights are ceded to him. Undeservedly.

It's exactly the same as identifying as another age. The only difference is possibly in the number of ways in which it can be exploited. The mechanism is identical.

People with progeria age more rapidly so age isn’t just about date of birth.

Age is a social construct. In olden tones you’d be ‘old’ if you lived to 30.

It's a different thing. It would affect censuses; any census he was on would need to be updated. The census record sender of course, but it's main function is to count the population and spot trends of both decline etc. If loads of people change their ages, all that has to be changed and it messes the data.

As it does with sex.

I thought he was trying to prove a point and a clever man

Deluded and clever seem increasingly hard to distinguish between though nowadays

Probably being cynical but I suspect he only has a problem attracting women of the age he wants to attract.

He would probably have much less of a problem attracting women in their 60s.

I also think he looks much older than 49.

Some things are affected the same. But she a whole load more implications than gender does. That's just the way it is. And blindly shouting "but it is the same" isn't going to work if women end up in court defending out eight to be women. It's different. Using it as a reason to stop self ID leaves you open to the other side proving how much it isn't the same, and then you lose cos your argument was wrong.

We change age then we can drink, smoke, start school, leave school, drive, marry, sign contests, claim benefits, claim pension, have relationships with children, go on courses/activities with age restrictions (which then opens up the door to the affect on insurances and business insurance for rollercoaster, metalwork or any activity they offer to the public over a certain age). It's never-ending.

Gender just isn't the same. It just isn't.

*age has a whole load more

The thing that makes him look younger is his very thick hair, with thinning hair and a bald patch he would look his age

I agree that gender isn't the same but nothing is the same... there is nothing which is directly analogous to gender self ID
this is close enough to make other people question self ID surely

Gender just isn't the same. It just isn't.

So you're saying it's not the same because there are greater affects on the whole of society from age.

I'm saying it's the same because it's also fabricating a change in reality, which invalidates previous data collected for that person, and affects statistics. Also because the people that would bear the brunt of the downside of these affects are women.

So allowing people to change age - affects everyone adversely, affects many aspects of everyone's life with regard to laws. Allowing people to change sex, mainly affects women adversely, affects many aspects of women's lives with respect to the laws written to grant them a modicum of equality.

They'll question it, then you'll get the team activists listing everything I have, and more cos that's just off the top of my head with no research.

It's not the same. It will help with getting people to think more about allowing self ID and the doors it could open, but it won't help as a back up to this argument like "you won't allow age, well gender is the same so don't allow it". Because it's not.

Gender/sex may not be the same but surely there is a comparison between 'wiping historical years from one's birth record' and 'changing' the sex you were born as?
I personally do not believe you can change sex and that gender/sex conflation is a deliberate attempt to undermine sex as a protected characteristic.
But surely allowing an individual to amend their birth record is creating exactly the same scenario - their history is being amended or wiped out in that others around (parents) have to blindly accept a new history.

@Micke

And that is why it's not the same. The laws and regulations for age, the social aspect of age which governs what we can do for fun, the insurance implications for age... there is mountains of things which age will affect. It is impossibly to allow that change without causing everything to be screwed.

Children will stop going to school. Grown adults will start going to primary. Children will be driving. As soon as someone has worked enough years to get their full state pension, they'll retire and then we need to find a way to pay them a pension for 50 years. The lost goes on and on.

Gender isn't the same. It doesn't affect the same things. It won't change EVERYTHING about society. It changes a lot, it fucks up a lot, it ruins a lot for us. But it's not the same and the arugemtns are not the same.

It's within living memory that there were multiple distinct differences in terms of employment, marriage, pension, benefits etc for men and women, though.

For example, serving in certain bits of the army; the marriage bar on teachers and the civil service; pensionable age; same sex marriage; insurance premiums and annuities etc etc

And off the top of my head, there remain restrictions on women entering certain professions (such as the clergy) which are not legal but nevertheless have exemptions in the GR Act to maintain them. Inheritance of titles is, I think, set out in legislation, and also enjoys a carve-out in the GR Act (proof, if proof were needed, that Parliament did not believe that TMAM when passing the Act)