Birth certificates can't be changed??

[NImumconfused]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/nov/19/baby-girl-registered-wrong-sex-mansfield-registration-office

How ridiculous is that? You can't get it changed if the registrar made a mistake, but you can if you decide you want to become the opposite sex?

From the Telegraph version

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/11/19/our-daughter-wrongly-registered-boy-birth-certificate/

"Mr Bingham said: “I’ve had a conversation with him [Mr Anderson] and he said he was going to take it up with the minister for children. He said to us it’s a long process and we haven’t heard anything yet.

“I’ve sent him an email going through everything in detail that’s happened.”

He added: “We’ve since had another lady called Sarah reach out to us who says exactly the same thing happened to her there.

“She also had her daughter registered at the same registry office as us, who had the same mistake.

“She has been able to go back and correct this but we haven’t had this option. The registry office changed her birth certificate. If it can be changed for one, why not for us?

“Apparently the lady who saw us also helped them fill out the form. She told us she had read and proof-read it. It seemed like she was rushing it.

“We could have overlooked the mistake if it could have easily been corrected.”"

Both cases need a full investigation

The registration is an important historical document for the benefit of posterity, and can only be changed in very visible and transparent ways (no Tippex!).

The problem here is with the certificates based on it. The government has decided they have to reflect the registration warts and all, including any corrections.

It's hard to see why, when it just exposes the holder to a lifetime of irritation ('yes, my parents were tired when they registered my birth, ha ha') or worse ('yes, I discovered I had a DSD when I was ten, not that it's any of your business ')

And the Guardian one in the OP as each have slightly different takes and you get little bits of extra detail from each one:

“In a twist to the tale, Sarah Power, who registered her baby daughter at the same register office – with the same registrar – in October last year, had a similar experience.
“The registrar read back all the details correctly – including that our daughter was female – and then asked us to check the spellings of the name,” she said. “We checked the spelling but not the gender, because the registrar had already said it to us correctly.”

“It was only when we got outside the office door that we looked at the certificate and realised that our daughter had been registered as male.”

Power, however, was able to get a new, corrected birth certificate for her daughter after the registrar directed her to a GPO form. The Home Office, however, say this is no longer an option. ‘The local registration service was advised earlier this year not to issue [corrected] certificates in this way,” they said.”

Came on to see if there was a thread about this story. Good. Looks very much like the government will take action with the baby’s BC because the errors made are so unacceptable. This is a really good thing.

If this happens then GC people should offer their support to campaign alongside detransitioned people with GRCs, to get the law changed such that a GRC can be revoked on the basis of the person’s consent. At the moment if you get a GRC and then you detransition there is no legal way to remove the GRC. You remain legally of the opposite sex for your whole life. The only way to get your GRC revoked is to say you fraudulently applied for it in the first place (not sure how that would be evidenced). It’s not respectful of people’s dignity to require that they pretend they weren’t acting in good faith, when they were. It should be enough to say officially that you are detransitioning and therefore you want your legal sex to return to the reality of your birth sex.

This is a really unacceptable situation for a little baby who has no understanding of this and has two parents to explain for her. So there is absolutely no way the law should continue to require detransitioned people to legally live out the rest of their lives within a legal fiction that they no longer want to live by.

This is a clear case of two tier birth certificating

I'd taken it for granted that this was a genuine error (brain-fart, tired, distracted, etc) but two cases in close succession does give you cause for wonder. Either way, these parents deserve a rapid correction.

This story is very out of step with the Graun’s usual. First because it’s a Daily Mail style ‘the public sector is rubbish’ type story. And second because of the Graun’s support for the alphabet people to change their sex on documents whenever they feel like it.

It’s either a sign that they’ve finally got the message. Or they’re trying to signal their virtue in a very cryptic manner!

There've been some signs lately that the Graun is taking baby steps away...

I'm not sure detransitioners actually should be able to change a birth certificate yet again.

Its patently wrong they can get a new certificate in the first place, but to get another if they detrans is insane. Where will it end? How many times should you be allowed to change "gender", what if they want yet another new name? What if they want to transition again, another new name.

I can think of several high profile trans women who have changed name 3 or more times now. That is probably a can of worms we dont want opening.

This baby though, should have a new certificate showing the correct sex.

And two children from the same area with the same registrar making the exact same mistake gets my spidey senses atingle.

Its patently wrong they can get a new certificate in the first place,

Absolutely it is. But we are where we are.

but to get another if they detrans is insane. Where will it end? How many times should you be allowed to change "gender", what if they want yet another new name?

But I don't agree with that. The actual birth certificate is the 'real' one, which shows the true fact of the infant's sex. Anything else is just a stupid legal fiction. Reversion to the default should always be an option. And I don't see why it would be unreasonable to say that if you get a GRC and rescind it, you shouldn't get another chance. They 've already had one more chance than the rest of the genpop to change it.

I disagree. We know that detransitioned people (who have been public about it) include some really young women with GRCs like Keira Bell who were very young adults when they first went down the gender identity track. Then as very slightly older adults in their 20s, they detransitioned. Why should anyone in that situation be stuck for the rest of their life with a male legal identity? It’s been widely discussed on this board how kids are encouraged into seeing gender identity as the magical solution for all sorts of things. Social transition of kids has been strongly encouraged by various bodies. Only post Cass report is the tanker starting to turn around on that.

We can let Parliament debate how many times to allow people to change a BC or to return to the original form of it. Personally I don’t think the GRC or GRA should exist at all, I hope it’s repealed. But it’s not fair that detransitioned people are stuck with a GRC they don’t want.

It’s likely to be a cock up not a strategy, that two babies had their sex wrongly recorded. That’s not a high number nationally. But now it’s happened if I were a TRA activitist I would be trying to make it a wedge issue. So that resolving clerical errors might pave the way for a legal change towards children being able to have having BC legal transition. Which would sidestep the whole GRC process. Because a BC is for life. GRC is only possible for adults aged over 18.

It’s very important for children’s autonomy and well being that we hold the existing line that kids’ BCs can’t be changed for gender identity reasons. So maybe that is the line that the BC officials are trying to hold by insisting on holding on to the status quo. Maybe the officials are worried that if a parent’s or registrar’s mistake (in the direction away from biological reality) is permitted to be corrected, then another parent’s intentional change (away from reality towards gender identity) might also need to be permitted?

After all, these two babies’ parents at the same registry office noticed the error while their babies were still small. Making it crystal clear that gender identity issues are not in play. Fine. But what if the parents had had no reason to check or look at the BCs again and put them away until they applied for a passport for their child aged 10? Or 15? Or 25? Then they realised the mistake. Those parents or the young adult themselves should be able to change the BC then. Obviously.

But parents who want to transition their kids (or who are being fed awful manipulation about ‘better a live child, than…’) can make very strong arguments about wanting to transition their child and how the original BC is actually mistaken and doesn’t reflect the child. Not necessarily reality-mistaken but identity-mistaken. How should the officials respond then?

They can’t say no because they privilege biological reality, because we already have the GRA in the UK. All they can say without offending TRAs is that the UK has a blanket policy that no kids BCs can ever be changed. Even if this creates a few casualties like these two babies legally mis-sexed at the same registry office. The officials maybe think it’s a small price to pay (not small for those two families though is it).

All this again just gives yet another reason why GRA should be repealed. Adults shouldn’t be able to change legal sex. Everyone should be able to live as they want in terms of expressing themselves, with full protection of the law. But permitting legal sex change can create minefields where issues that should be straightforward, like rectifying a mistake for these two babies could potentially become very complex and divisive.

Thanks so much for that great post. That's top clarity.

But parents who want to transition their kids (or who are being fed awful manipulation about ‘better a live child, than…’) can make very strong arguments about wanting to transition their child and how the original BC is actually mistaken and doesn’t reflect the child. Not necessarily reality-mistaken but identity-mistaken. How should the officials respond then?

I dont think this argument would hold much water.

Adults can get their bc changed, not because of a typo, or the incorrect sex being recorded, but because of a diagnosis of gender dysphoria. The bc is reissued for privacy reasons, not because anyone thinks the orginal bc is incorrect.

The slippery slope would be children getting diagnosed with gender dysphoria and needing privacy too.

Its also the reason why detransitioners have a problem - they also need a diagnosis of gd to get their bc changed again. Although when self id was suggested, a maximum number of transitions was suggested.

There must be instances of date of birth being incorrectly recorded?

I don’t think I’m following entirely but why should children be less entitled to privacy (or accuracy) on their documents than adults? That’s partly what these two sets of parents with BC admin cock ups are complaining of surely.

They want an accurate clean new record and ditto birth certificate. Not an incorrect one with a correction added on top. That change to allow a replacement of erroneous BCs, which I can see coming because the parents’ request is so reasonable, in theory does give an inch for TRA canpaigners. That is unless other legislation is actively put in to shore up against legal cases trying to allow children under 18 to get GRCs. And so we’d better hope for clued politicians to do that and all play our part in informing MPs about these issues.

The slippery slope would be children getting diagnosed with gender dysphoria and needing privacy too.

Both these things can happen.

The GRC isn't anything to do with the orginal birth certificates being factually incorrect. So any precedent in this case wouldn't apply to a person who wants a new birth certificate for privacy reasons.

Adopted children are issued with new birth certificates for privacy reasons not because a mistake has been made on the orginal.

Trans rights activists may talk about the birth certificate reflecting their true gender or a incorrect gender assigned at birth, but that its just bollocks they say.

Its two separate laws - where a birth can be reissued, and the orginal 'hiden' for privacy and one where the records are factually incorrect.

Yes, adoption is another good example of where privacy is at issue rather than correction of an error.

Before 1970, trans people could get their birth registrations changed as if to correct an error, eg ewan forbes and april ashley both did this to regularise their marriages, leading to court cases over a baronetcy and a marriage annulment respectively. It was the latter case that put a stop to this and kick-started the activism that led to the GRA and the GRC.

Trans people would have loved to go back to the previous arrangement, because they do think of it as a correction: the GRC is a compromise, that creates a fiction of 'legal sex'.

So I don't think this story has too much resonance for the trans debate, except insofar as it's got everyone thinking about the recordal and realities of sex for legal purposes.

There was a case about 10 years ago that was discussed on fwr about a woman with a male birth certificate. I think she couldn't marry in church because of it.

A note must have been added similar to the solution offered here and she had a female passport and driving licence. She couldnt change the bc, or a new one issued and the old one hidden. She couldn't use the GRC route (even if she wanted to) because her "gender identity" matched her actual sex.

Its the same problem that detransitioners have - they cant get a diagnosis of GR and another GRC because their sex hasnt changed, they dont have a mismatch between their sex and gender.

In Queensland, Australia, the law currently allows transgender people to change their sex listed on their birth certificate - once every 12 months. It is ludicrous.

Again, it seems like nobody really thought through the practical details when GRCs were first dreamed up.

So firstly - the birth records come from the hospital to the registrar so there is a possibly they were wrong at the hospital.

Secondly - the parents are asked a series of questions and then sign to say that the information is 'accurate to the best of their knowledge and belief' so they signed to say the baby was male.

Also - the birth certificate will be corrected, but it will be with a marginal note.

Finally - you don't know that the registrar wasn't equally sleep deprived plus they didn't actually KNOW the baby's sex ..... the parents did!

So firstly - the birth records come from the hospital to the registrar so there is a possibly they were wrong at the hospital.

There will be an audit trail so it should become clear if that is where the error originated . . . however . . .

Secondly - the parents are asked a series of questions and then sign to say that the information is 'accurate to the best of their knowledge and belief' so they signed to say the baby was male.

. . . in both cases cited, the parents claim that the Registrar read out the sex of their child as it should have been recorded. So, whether the error originated at the hospital or not, the Registrar contributed massively to the problem by reading out loud the opposite of what they themselves had written down.

Given that the same Registrar had made the same mistake earlier this year, it was beyond negligent of her to explicitly direct the parents' attention only to the spelling of the child's name - which would likely cause them to overlook giving careful scrutiny to other details.

How many times does this have to happen for a Registrar to be deemed incompetent to hold such a responsible position?

I don't disagree that the registrar has contributed to this. I do disagree that it is solely the registrars fault.

You sign a legal document to register your baby. If BOTH parents fail to read that correctly before they sign it then that part is their fault.

I agree the registrar should be retrained to inform parents that they need to read the entire document and be certain it is accurate before they sign it.

I don't believe anyone did this on purpose, its going to lead to awkward performance review for the registrar, and lots of admin for the parents.

It's ridiculous that such an obvious mistake can't be rectified without a fuss.

Surely baby’s sex is on the notification that the hospital/home midwife team send to the registrar? That notification starts the 6 week countdown for compulsory registration.

Maybe it’s changed since my kids were born (early 00s up to early 2010s) but all were issued with sex specific identity bands (pink or blue) which noted mum’s surname, baby DOB and boy or girl ie the info that is forwarded to the registrar in the mother’s district.

All the parents need to add at the appointment is baby name, father/second parent where applicable and parents professions (optional).

here’s Manchester Registrar’s webpage stating that they receive a notification from
the hospital: https://www.manchester.gov.uk/info/200010/births/492/register_a_birth/2#:~:text=Births%20must%20be%20registered%20within,date%20of%20marriage%20(if%20applicable)

I notice they also suggest bringing baby’s red book, which is sex specific (pink growth charts for girls, blue growth charts for boys).