Man loses case to 'identify' as twenty years younger

[needmorespace]

here

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

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.

The only thing here that sex doesn't also affect is the laws and regulations for age. Social aspects, insurance, mountains of other things are affected by sex. Things are being screwed by allowing people to re-write history and change their sex. Yes, it's a different scale, but it's still re-writing history.

@needmorespace

That's one small part of this judgement, and is an argument already being used to stop self ID. But age had a mountain more arguments to defend it's right to be set in stone. And that mountain of arguments will be agreed with by almost everyone, they will affect everyone, they will affect every part of our society, every regulation and rule... in very obvious ways. That is why his case was thrown out.

Self ID isn't the same. It has it's own mountain of arguments. Use those. Don't use this judgement.

Any analogy can be manipulated or interpreted so as to illustrate whatever point or viewpoint you have
Analogies are not facts, they are ambiguous malleable tools that people use to promote a certain position

And that mountain of arguments will be agreed with by almost everyone, they will affect everyone

yes. The cynic in me thinks this is why sex is being viewed differently - since the people most adversely affected by allowing people to change sex on their documentation are women.

It was the inevitable outcome. The interesting bit will be to see the rationale that will demonstrate that it is fantastical to suggest that you can alter the reality of your age but a material reality to change your biological sex.

Sorry, thought this was in Aibu.

@Micke

Let's face it, That is absolutely one of the reasons. If it affected men the way it affected us, they wouldn't even entertain the idea of allowing it. It shouldn't be that way, but it is.

What will happen to census records? Presumably they won't be changed retrospectively too?
What happens to exam certificates? How to you prove your qualifications if referring to your dead-name after transition is verboten in a job application?

Bit surprised at how many times Hostenlnane has decided we have to be told not to mention it, it's not the same, must not be used as an argument, until we are told categorically Don't use this judgement.

How odd.

@Bubonicpanic

Because if you rock up to A court and say "it's the same as age, and a court decided that age cannot be changed by self ID so you can't allow this". Then you will get killed by all the affects of changing age which are not the same as choosing a gender. Then you lose. That's the point.

There are a whole host of things to argue to stop self ID. Use those. But saying "well it's the same as the age thing" isn't going to work. It could be part of it maybe, to get people thinking but, at the end of the day, it's different. And it's easy to argue how different it is.

Transage. It's a thing.
Transabled. Its a thing.

Either objective material reality holds supreme over personal choice, and cannot be used to falsify documentation or to access resources and services, or it doesn't. It doesn't matter which particular feature. One feature cannot be ok and others not.

Who is going to rock up at court?

And it's easy to argue how different it is

You haven't convinced anyone here. Every point you have made has been rebutted. My question I why do you keep repeating this over and over again?

I'm not convinced that sex is that different from age, legally speaking. There was a case in 2005, Bellinger, where the judge talks about how important sex is from a legal perspective. The judge says "classification of a person as male or female has long conferred a legal status...the legal consequences affect many areas of life from marriage and family law, to gender specific crime and competitive sport." He then stated, most crucially..."individuals cannot choose for themselves whether they wish to be known or treated as male or female. self-definition is not acceptable. That would make nonsense of the underlying biological basis of the distinction."

So in 2005, before trans activism really took off, judges recognised that the distinction between the sexes was legally significant, and was relevant to a great many areas of life (sport, schools, privacy, medical treatment etc) and that to move to a self ID system would make the sex distinction meaningless. This is very similar to the judgement about the importance of age.

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

He was doing it to try and prove a point about trans, and it was clever enough to fool people on both sides of the fence. Very subtle.

WeeBisom I agree with you-comparisons can be drawn from this case.
There are MANY reasons why self ID is not a good idea, including the fact that if courts won't allow self ID on age, there is reason to believe self ID on sex shouldn't be allowed either-it causes a whole host of problems. Lets not forget the fact that GRC's were primarily to get around same sex marriage, and was a legal fiction.

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

Sex. Not gender. And it does affect a lot of stuff - because the self ID crowd want SEX replaced with gender in law and then to be able to self identify gender. This will have huge implications. The equality act will be unworkable in regards to sex based protections. ALL legislation based on SEX would be meaningless.

The differences though are crucial for the following reason: allowing self ID for age affects men too.

Self ID for gender only really fucks over women. Men don’t lose out at all. Self ID for age affects men.

And that’s why it’s suddenly terribly different

Holstenlane Mon 03-Dec-18 13:02:33
"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."

Messes the data. Quite. So what's your opinion @Holstenlane on the possibility of the census no longer recording sex, but gender identity? ( scottish-women.com/2018/12/01/census-bill-to-change-sex-to-gender-identity/ )

How will they plan NHS services on messed data? Prostate services will become underfunded, for example, if enough men are census'ed as women.

If you’ve had a kid before you legally transition, that kid’s parent (as recorded on their birth certificate) legally disappears.

In years to come, people researching their family tree will hit dead ends (deadname ends?) it makes absolutely no sense to tamper with historical documents.

Every other legal paperwork sits on top of the one before (divorce papers cancel out a marriage certificate, for example) - why not this one?

It boils down to:

Sex self ID fucks over women. No one cares
Age self ID affects men. So it’s important

I can see why this guy wanted to see if he could win this - I mean if someone else can change their gender it's the logical next step really - for someone else to see if they can change something else that is intrinsic to who they are.

Age though is more than just a number. You are not as young as you feel. Just because you feel 49 doesn't mean that you'll get an extra 20 years of life. The average age at death of a man in the Netherlands is apparently 75.8, which is something that 69-year-old Mr Rattelband's next Tinder date might like to know, if they are planning a long life with him.

I agree your date may well like to know your real age, and with good reason. It reminds me of the TRA argument that it should not be a requirement to be honest about your biological sex with the person you're taking to bed if it differs from what they believe it is, nor should they have legal come back if they are not happy when they realise and feel that you misled them into a situation they would not have given informed consent to.

It really is all the same thing.

The most obvious similarity is that it would be asking the state to collude in an obvious lie.

The applicant in this case is not 49, however much he may well feel like it. Similarly he could not become a woman, however much he may feel like one (note - there's no suggestion that he is is trans - this is just for the purposes of discussion)

TRAs who want all documentation to be changed are trying to create a ficticious world, where the John Smith who was born to Mary and Peter Smith, who passed 9 GCSEs, his driving test, and got a degree then accountancy qualification before marrying Susan Jones and fathering Helen and Tom Smith never existed. If TRAs have their way, when John Smith decides to transition and be known as Joanna, Mary and Peter have always had a daughter; it's a mystery who took those exams and driving test; Susan was in a lesbian relationship which miraculous produced two children who have two mothers

It's just BS

People change age all the time. I’m a year older than last year. I have a friend who was 39 for several years on the run but I suspect she was lying.

The only difference is this guy got younger when age is considered a one way street.

On the other hand nobody changes sex - not even in one direction.