Holly Lawford-Smith on proposed changes to Victorian legislation

[DancelikeEmmaGoldman]

Why some feminists oppose allowing people to choose their sex on birth certificates

The comments, as usual, offer much accusation of bigotry, but no sensible argument.

I’m so dishearten that even the wokest (or worst, as autocorrect would have it), have so little respect for women they won’t even contemplate listening to their concerns.

The world works in mysterious ways. The backlash against women’s rights took so little time to arrive, but in an unexpected fashion.

In the one hand, an escalation in male violence, and in the other, male intrusion into single-sex spaces. The message is clearly, “women stay home; all that was yours is now ours”.

theconversation.com/why-some-feminists-oppose-allowing-people-to-choose-their-sex-on-birth-certificates-121874

I find it astounding that a birth certificate can be altered in any way, seeing as how it is meant to be a record of fact. I remember years ago when I first heard of it thinking 'that's absurd'. But of course at that stage it seemed like it would apply to such a tiny handful of people. Talk about the thin end of the wedge.

Clicky theconversation.com/why-some-feminists-oppose-allowing-people-to-choose-their-sex-on-birth-certificates-121874

As the law currently stands, sex is either biological (as observed at birth and recorded on birth certificates) or altered (as obtained through sex reassignment surgery). In both cases, it is defined by clear physical attributes.

What? So we can alter biology through surgery now?

The bill replaces these physical understandings of sex with something entirely different: gender identity. Gender identity is something internal to a person – the way they feel about themselves.

And this new sex is not biological, or provable, or testable? It is all in my head and the answer is 42.

Yet, the bill considers gender identity to be equivalent to the physical understanding of “sex” - so much so that if a person makes a statutory declaration as to their gender identity, they acquire a new legal sex.

Yes ‘legal sex’ not actual biological sex 🤦‍♀️
I’m going to start practicing telepathy because it’s going to be the only way to know how someone sees themselves, so I don’t end up in jail.
Just to help out I’ve already stated I’m 42. (That’s not my age unfortunately.)

If you can change the sex shown on your birth certificate... why not your place of birth? Your date of birth?

Why can you change one fact, but not others?

The law passed.

Similar already existed in other states and it was a forgone conclusion that this would go through. But devastating.

Live tweeting from the 'debate'

https://twitter.com/hllsmith/status/1166274147502252032?s=21

The message is clearly, “women stay home; all that was yours is now ours”.

I cannot understand how it was ever considered reasonable that legal documents of fact could be rewritten. As a mother, of course there would be many issues if one of my daughters decided to transition, but even if I enthusiastically supported her decision I would still object to the rewriting of her birth certificate. I gave birth to a daughter. That is my history as much as hers. All those baby photos, the name we chose, the birth announcement. Should all those be wiped from our family history as the past Is rewritten?

I'm amazed no one has mentioned this but I suppose most families, whether supportive or not, feel too cowed to make any remark on this.

If legal documents now reflect chosen identities what's the point of them? Pick your personal avatar and let's go, I'll be a vampire born in Paris in 1312 please.

Seriously. Why should the population as a whole continue doing this when actually anyone can pick their sex as a preference instead of an immediately objectively verifiable fact that any medic could manage in seconds in any city in any country in the world? As asked at the Scots discussion on the census, should public records be a factual basis from which to get data to inform public process, or something written by Hans Christian Anderson serving no purpose. The whole 'it's too tiny a proportion of people to worry about it' is fatuous in the extreme: if anyone can do this then you have to assume everyone can. And may well do. To prove the point if for no other reason.

It's really bizarre imo. What is the point of these documents and records if not to provide an accurate statement of fact?
I am currently working my way through the 118 questions of the Law Commission Consultation paper on revising the UK surrogacy laws.
They clearly recognise that children have a right to information about their genetic heritage and history and are proposing the introduction of a national register of surrogacy agreements.
Anyone who watches Who do youThink You Are can see how much it means to people to be able to trace their ancestral history.
And yet around the world laws are being passed that do away with all that!