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

[JellySlice]

Interesting article in today's Times. I only have a paper , so can't link it, but perhaps someone with a subscription could post a share token for the Law Report: No right to have residence permit amended for suicidal tendencies.

Essentially, a refugee was granted indefinite leave to remain and issued with a Biometric Residence Permit giving a date of birth which he disagrees with. He wants to change the date of birth, and is on hunger strike over the government's refusal to do so.

I struggle with the legalese, but these paragraphs stand out, and are quite clear:

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

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

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

@Barracker

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. This.

@Aha85

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

@Melroses

Emile Ratelbrand

Someone sounds like a transmedicalist...

@Barracker

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."

I'm glad I dug that you tube clip out now.

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".

However in this case (the one in the Times court report) the age assigned to him is the most plausible one, whereas the date he wanted could not be established by evidence and which was well outside the wide range for his assessed age.

What's the evidence for which age is his? The evidence-based age assessment, which could have looked at all sorts of physical features such as teeth and bone xrays, or his feelings of internal identity?

A couple of years ago there was a refugee in a secondary school, whom the children and staff suspected was older than he claimed. He was eventually removed from the school, because his claim to be a certain age was not supported by physical reality.

There is another aspect to the case that concerns me: the claim that the state has a responsibility to make changes that an individual wants for themselves, regardless of the needs of society, because if they don't the individual will kill themselves.

Remind you of anything?

[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.

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

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/