Next time I get caught shoplifting I shall identify as a child under the age of criminal responsibility.
No need to even do that. I've bludgeoned dozens of my nemeses to death in my time (generally with butternut squashes in Tesco on a Thursday morning when it's quiet, if you were wondering) and, if the law ever tries to suggest that I'm wrong in any way or restrict my freedom to continue doing so, I shall have them shamed as the nasty, filthy bigots and phobics for discriminating against me - and all of my fellow transinnocents and allies feel exactly the same.
The problem is - as was obvious when the Dutch bloke first brought his case (and I don't for a minute believe that he's serious) - suggesting that you can change your actual sex (many say gender, but you can tell they really mean their sex to all intents and purposes) is no more or less absurd than believing you can change your age. People (currently) will euphemistically say "I'm a young 50" or "I don't feel a day over 25" but they don't generally say "I AM 30" when they're actually 65.
If you can currently change your birth certificate to claim you were born as the opposite sex and be legally treated as though it were unarguably true, how does that really differ in principle from wanting to change it to 'affirm your true age identity'? I remember being desperate to reach the age of 17, so that I could start learning to drive, and I now realise what a fool I was, when I could have just had my BC legally brought forward 5 years and begun at 12.
It's also great news for blind people, as they will now also be legally able to drive, just as soon as they have their medical records 'corrected' to 'affirm' their true identity as somebody with perfect vision.
What a tangled web we weave....