Another brick *from* the wall

[Richard_Pearse]

@Melbourne

Ok, but in that case, why have a birth certificate at all? Why would anybody care enough about ‘the facts at the time of birth’ to make a record of it?
I’ve never heard that the governmet had any such interest-- AFAIK, birth registration was introduced to prevent infanticide – and then extended to handle localized social-security and child-support, None of that actually needs or benefits from long term recording of ‘facts at time of birth’ – it just a historical anomoly of paper-based record systems.

I’m only a little bit libertarian, but I don’t see that recording facts just for the sake of having recorded facts has any obvious benefit.

I think a birth certificate is a small piece of history. They can be very important for descendants who develop an interest in where they came from.

I think they should record the facts at the time and not be changed afterwards. A birth certificate (the ones I’ve seen) records the date, name, gender, and place of birth of the baby, along with the parents names, occupations, and dates of birth. Most of these things can change later. The place of birth may change its name or even become a part of a different country, the parents names and occupations may change, and the baby’s gender and name may change. I don’t see any reason at all to change any of these things on the birth certificate just because they’ve changed some time post birth. It is a good thing to have an option for a non-standard gender to be used in cases where the physical gender isn’t clear and the parents don’t want to have to make an arbitrary decision.

[LSLGuy]

@Pantastic

Birth certificates have never worked the way your theory has them work. In the real world, you have to change your birth certificate to change the other documents. …

If indeed the real world works this way, then that defective administrative procedure is the one to change. Not going around rewriting birth records as a workaround. I have no certain knowledge, but I’d bet you’re wrong in a lot of cases. Though maybe not locally wherever you may be.

IMO Sir T-Cups has the right philosophy. The rest is implementation details.
Here’s a comparison: Real property records in civilized countries stretch back decades or centuries. Recording each twist and turn in how every square foot of land in a country has been divided, sub-divided, re-agglomerated, bought, sold, inherited, and in many cases, leased. Only the most recent record is controlling for current legal reality. But all the history is still there and available for whatever value it may have in the future.

A birth certificate is just that. Evidence of facts true (net of error) at the time of birth. Let’s set aside sex change for a minute and concentrate on something more mundane: name changes.

When Suzy Smith marries Johnny Jones and chooses to take the name Suzy Jones, do we go back and alter her birth certificate? No. Of course not. Instead a legal document is prepared that amends her name. And now her “permanent records” have two documents. And on the strength of that she gets a new driver’s license, credit cards, etc.

When Theodoreus Theanopolopolis decides he’s tired of spelling his name for clerks and changes it to “Adam Ant” do we go back and alter his birth certificate? No. Of course not. Instead a legal document is prepared that amends his name. And now his “permanent records” have two documents. And on the strength of that he gets a new driver’s license, credit cards, etc.

This bit of recognizing that sex/gender/whatever word we want to use is both A) not 100% binary and B) not 100% fixed for life is all pretty new to many people. And is also pretty new to a lot of bureaucracies. Lots of people and no few governments are sticking their heads in the sand real hard over this.

But in principle the answer is easy. We already know exactly what to do because we already do it for hundreds of other attributes of people that we’ve always understood to be not 100% fixed for life. We keep the original records as they were originally and issue a separate amending document of some sort.

I find the accusations of bad faith gender/sex/whatever Luddism in this thread to be overwrought. YMMV.

[Pantastic]

@Sir_T-Cups

Your first paragraph took a simple statement of mine “I don’t think you should be able to change a birth certificate” and took it (and my intentions) WAAYYYY to left field to paint me as a bad guy.

I took your statement that you do not think that ‘you’ should be able to change a birth certificate to mean that you believed that people should not be able to change a birth certificate. That isn’t going WAAAYY to left field, that’s interpreting your statement ‘I don’t think people should be able to do this’ as ‘T-Cups doesn’t think people should be able to do this’. I’m not sure why you’re trying to paint that as something extreme, but it’s about as direct and non-extreme of a reading as is possible.

On to your second paragraph where you not only assume that I think doctors at birth are always correct 100% of the time (I never said or insinuated something like that)

If you think that people should not be able to change birth certificates, then either you think that doctors never make errors or feel that the errors should never be corrected. I assumed you presumed sex determination was never inaccurate, because never fixing errors would be an absurd position to take, and fixing errors would contradict your stated position. The fact that you actually believe something contrary to what you stated isn’t actually my fault, it’s your fault for not writing what you meant.

That being said, your gross misinterpretation of my words and my intent certainly took me aback. Especially since you jumped at me and assumed these negative intentions right from the get-go

I didn’t misinterpret any of your words, and you’ve failed to show anywhere where I did.

[Pantastic]

@LSLGuy

If indeed the real world works this way, then that defective administrative procedure is the one to change. Not going around rewriting birth records as a workaround. I have no certain knowledge, but I’d bet you’re wrong in a lot of cases. Though maybe not locally wherever you may be.

So you don’t even know how birth certificates and identity documents work in the real world, but you’re willing to cripple people’s ability to lead a functional life based on an abstract idea of how you think they ought to work. What you’re saying in theory is an abstract argument, but what you’re arguing for in practice is that trans people should not get the identity documents needed to function in the modern US util the bureaucracies and laws of all states undergo massive changes that no one is particularly motivated to do.

It’s too bad you weren’t willing to put money behind your bet, as you’d lose. Take a look at https://www.lambdalegal.org/know-your-rights/article/trans-changing-birth-certificate-sex-designations . There currently four states that don’t correct sex on birth certificates, the other 46 plus DC correct birth certificates.

IMO Sir T-Cups has the right philosophy. The rest is implementation details.

I don’t think that a philosophy of hurting trans people for the sake of an abstract point is the right philosophy. And people’s lives are more than implementation details.

When Theodoreus Theanopolopolis decides he’s tired of spelling his name for clerks and changes it to “Adam Ant” do we go back and alter his birth certificate? No. Of course not. Instead a legal document is prepared that amends his name. And now his “permanent records” have two documents. And on the strength of that he gets a new driver’s license, credit cards, etc.

Who is the ‘we’ exactly, and why is it an ‘of course not’? Some states change birth certificates upon any legal name change, some don’t. I don’t have a list handy like I did for sex changes, but states are inconsistent in whether name changes are reflected on the birth certificate. All that I am aware of will change it in some specified circumstances, like adoption. A number of states will change a birth certificate for any court ordered name change. I believe that the 46 states that will change the sex will also change the name as part of the same process, but I haven’t verified that.

I find the accusations of bad faith gender/sex/whatever Luddism in this thread to be overwrought. YMMV.

It’s not even an accusation; the result of what you’re saying is that you think trans people should not be allowed to do what they need to do and have been doing to get correct ID on the basis of some obscure philosophical principle about documents that doesn’t line up with how they work in the real world.

[Richard_Pearse]

I’ve had a rethink. For gender only, a change should be considered to be correcting a mistake and therefore allowed.

[Sir_T-Cups]

@Pantastic

I took your statement that you do not think that ‘you’ should be able to change a birth certificate to mean that you believed that people should not be able to change a birth certificate. That isn’t going WAAAYY to left field, that’s interpreting your statement ‘I don’t think people should be able to do this’ as ‘T-Cups doesn’t think people should be able to do this’. I’m not sure why you’re trying to paint that as something extreme, but it’s about as direct and non-extreme of a reading as is possible.

The extremity wasn’t in your interpretation of my statement, on that you were 100% correct. The extremity was your statement of:

So in theory, you have a position on how birth certificates should work, and want to enforce it. In practice, what you do is to oppose trans people being able to get documentation with the correct current name and gender out of some weird philosophical stance that has little to do with reality.

wherein you took my statement and immediately assumed I’m actively trying to change policy, while also making the vague claim that I’m trying to oppose trans people too. On top of that, it’s mildly insulting to say my opinion has little to do with reality.

If you think that people should not be able to change birth certificates, then either you think that doctors never make errors or feel that the errors should never be corrected. I assumed you presumed sex determination was never inaccurate, because never fixing errors would be an absurd position to take, and fixing errors would contradict your stated position. The fact that you actually believe something contrary to what you stated isn’t actually my fault, it’s your fault for not writing what you meant.

Did you read the final paragraph I wrote? I gave you a concession that you might have not known my stance on doctor error. Why didn’t you acknowledge that when you typed your defense just now? And I still gotta say that’s a big leap for you to make to just assume I think doctors are infallible and that I wouldn’t think that would be a good reason to change the certificate. Why didn’t you just ask me what I thought about that particular situation? Even granting you the consideration that you didn’t know my thoughts when you typed that, you immediately jumped to a conclusion about me and my thoughts (and judged me for it) before actually finding out my full stance.

I didn’t misinterpret any of your words, and you’ve failed to show anywhere where I did.

That’s a good point, you didn’t misinterpret my words as much as you misinterpreted my intentions/attitude and judged me without cause.

[Senegoid]

@Bricker

If a person is born with complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, what should the birth certificate say for gender?

□ M
□ F
□ All of the above
□ None of the above

[LSLGuy]

@Sir_T-Cups

…That’s a good point, you didn’t misinterpret my words as much as you misinterpreted my intentions/attitude and judged me without cause.

This. Me too. Clearly this is a topic that Pantastic is very passionate about.

I totally support the idea that folks of non-standard sex/gender/whatever word be free to adjust their administrivia to match whatever they see as their reality. In a way that’s no more legally difficult than is a name change. Fill out a form at the courthouse, pay $10 or whatever, some clerk stamps it with the [OFFICIAL] stamp and it’s done.

If in the interim until this obvious legal practice becomes widespread the common workaround is to retroactively alter birth certificates, well so be it. It’s a crap workaround from an administrative and logical perspective, but it apparently gets the job done.

I’d just like us to phase out the workarounds as rapidly as possible. Make it easy for the people who have this issue. Not hard.

[Miller]

@Sir_T-Cups

wherein you took my statement and immediately assumed I’m actively trying to change policy, while also making the vague claim that I’m trying to oppose trans people too. On top of that, it’s mildly insulting to say my opinion has little to do with reality.

Well, except he’s absolutely right. In practice, you are opposing letting trans people get the identification they need because you have a weird hang up about what birth certificates are for. That’s not an accusation of intent, that’s a statement of effect. Your motivations are unrelated to transpeople, but that doesn’t mean your idea about how birth certificates should work wouldn’t have a significant negative impact on them.

And your opinion does have little to do with reality, because the reality is, birth certificates are not historical documents. They’re personal identification. We don’t keep birth certificates so some future historian can say, “A baby named John Smith was born on December 1st, 1975!” We keep them so John Smith can prove, when necessary, that he was born on December 1st, 1975. And if John Smith’s birth certificate says, “Jane Davis,” it’s significantly more difficult for John to prove that he was born in 1975. Which defeats the entire purpose of the document.

[Richard_Pearse]

Is it more difficult? Isn’t it just a matter of producing a birth certificate and name change documentation?

[Sir_T-Cups]

@Miller

Well, except he’s absolutely right. In practice, you are opposing letting trans people get the identification they need because you have a weird hang up about what birth certificates are for. That’s not an accusation of intent, that’s a statement of effect. Your motivations are unrelated to transpeople, but that doesn’t mean your idea about how birth certificates should work wouldn’t have a significant negative impact on them.

And your opinion does have little to do with reality, because the reality is, birth certificates are not historical documents. They’re personal identification. We don’t keep birth certificates so some future historian can say, “A baby named John Smith was born on December 1st, 1975!” We keep them so John Smith can prove, when necessary, that he was born on December 1st, 1975. And if John Smith’s birth certificate says, “Jane Davis,” it’s significantly more difficult for John to prove that he was born in 1975. Which defeats the entire purpose of the document.

I have no doubts that Pantastic is correct because it’s very apparent he’s done the research and knows these things. I’m freely admitting I don’t.

My major hangup over our entire conversation is that it seems like my statement was taken to the nth degree and painted in a negative light without it being warranted. I’m not really angry about it or offended, it just took be aback. Thinking about it further, I think it’s a side-effect of posting on this board in the first place. So many of us are politically charged and knowledgeable that it would make sense to assume that an opinion automatically means that a change needs to be made right now. And most opinions are given here with the purpose of starting an argument.

That ain’t me. I’m really quite stupid and absolutely loathe politics.

Just because I think something doesn’t mean I actively want to change it or upend the status quo; I just think things. I think that birth certificates should be closer to the “historical document” than the “means of identification”, but I don’t really care if it is. As has been stated by Pantastic and yourself, doing so would change a lot of things. Neat. So then don’t change it, I’m really not passionate about it either way.

Automatically assuming that someone is trying to change something, or that just because they have an opinion on it means they’re vehemently against those who don’t agree with them and want to fight about it, is just off-putting. Sometimes people just think things, you know?

[Pantastic]

@Sir_T-Cups

For me, it all boils down to the fact that I don’t think birth certificates should be allowed to be changed at all. If you were born a female, named Susie Buckets, in Dallas, TX, then there is nothing you should be able to do in your future to change that because nothing you can change now will retroactively change all of that information.

@Sir_T-Cups

wherein you took my statement and immediately assumed I’m actively trying to change policy, while also making the vague claim that I’m trying to oppose trans people too. On top of that, it’s mildly insulting to say my opinion has little to do with reality.

You made a clear statement that you “don’t think birth certificates should be allowed to be changed at all,” and that “there is nothing you should be able to do in the future to change that”. I didn’t “assume” that you are opposed to people changing birth certificates, you literally and unambiguously stated that you don’t think that people should be allowed to change them. It’s not a leap for me to think that you meant literally what you said, if you meant something different then you shouldn’t have said that you “don’t think birth certificates should be allowed to be changed at all,”. There also isn’t a significant leap from “I think people should not be allowed to do make this paperwork change” to “I think that policy should be that people are not allowed to make this paperwork change”, especially when you felt the need to make the comment in a thread specifically about people making paperwork changes.

There’s no jump in assuming that the general “you” I quoted includes all people, if you didn’t intend to include trans people in the “you” then you should have specified it, especially in the context of a thread about recording and changing sex or gender markers on birth certificates. And my statement that your opinion about birth certificates has little to do with reality is simple fact; birth certificates simply do not function the way that you said you think they should.

Did you read the final paragraph I wrote? I gave you a concession that you might have not known my stance on doctor error. Why didn’t you acknowledge that when you typed your defense just now?

Because your ‘concession’ has nothing to do with the discussion at hand and is what I would call stupidly true - no one here can read minds, so of course it’s safe to ‘concede’ that people don’t know information about any others posters thoughts that the poster didn’t post. I’m not going to put a disclaimer like “BTW, no one here is a mind reader so I’m only responding to what you write and not whatever might or might not be in your head” because it’s just absurd to do so.

And I still gotta say that’s a big leap for you to make to just assume I think doctors are infallible and that I wouldn’t think that would be a good reason to change the certificate. Why didn’t you just ask me what I thought about that particular situation?

“For me, it all boils down to the fact that I don’t think birth certificates should be allowed to be changed at all.” It’s not a leap to think that by “at all” you meant “at all”, that’s what you wrote. There simply isn’t a leap from you saying “this should not be changed at all” to me saying “you said this should not be changed at all”. I note that in this thread you simply respond to my words directly, and don’t pause before each response to ask me if I mean what I said before responding - why not, if you really think that’s a reasonable way to operate?

[Pantastic]

@LSLGuy

If indeed the real world works this way, then that defective administrative procedure is the one to change. Not going around rewriting birth records as a workaround. I have no certain knowledge, but I’d bet you’re wrong in a lot of cases. Though maybe not locally wherever you may be.

@LSLGuy

This. Me too. Clearly this is a topic that Pantastic is very passionate about.

What happens is that I get annoyed when people who don’t know what they’re talking about jump into a thread where I’m stating facts and claim that I’m wrong based off some feeling they have, and wrap it up with a condescending “though maybe not locally wherever you may be”. Being condescending and incorrect while telling someone else that they were incorrect tends to get a “passionate” response.

[Pantastic]

@Sir_T-Cups

My major hangup over our entire conversation is that it seems like my statement was taken to the nth degree and painted in a negative light without it being warranted.

This is only true for the case where “n” equals “1”. You made a clear, unambiguous statement and I responded to the literal words that you wrote, there’s no taking it to a higher degree involved.