I think it’s a good idea. Doubtless some fool will pitch a fit about the idea, though. It was proposed by Democrats, and will obviously be leaped upon by the GOP. Almost seems foolish to even propose the idea.
It never occurred to me before, but now that you mention it, I can’t think of a legitimate reason to include sex on a birth certificate.
This sounds to me like a propaganda plant from the rightists that some D was dumb enough to fall for.
This is the kind of stupid that gives the Right’s freakout about “runaway wokeness” a legit plank to stand on.
Even for legit Ds, it’s a performative solution in desperate search of an actual problem.
Neither can I.
We had at least one thread about a state that passed legislation mandating all school employees report such things as-
A student using a name that does not match the sex on their birth certificate
A student wearing clothing that does not match the sex on their birth certificate
and so on.
If there is no sex listed on a student’s birth certificate, that legislation becomes meaningless.
My across the hall neighbor at my last apartment was AFAIK a trans woman. I knew from hearing her speak on the phone (the building had terrible sound proofing) that my neighbor was an effeminate gay man or a trans woman. I only met my neighbor a few times. She was always wearing pretty women’s clothing, long hair, make up, and identified themselves by a female name. I only ever heard people refer to her by female pronouns. So, either she was a cis woman with some odd facial bone structure and hormone iregularities, or she was a trans woman. It was not my place to ask. Even if it was, I didn’t care. Her assigned sex at birth should be known by any medical professionals providing treatment, and at some point (there is great debate on exactly when) by romantic/sexual partners. I don’t need to know. Nor does anybody else.
I have seen quite a few (I’m assuming) trans women in my new neighborhood. It is a very liberal and LGBTQ+ friendly place. I may be wrong, these may not be trans women. What actual difference does it make? They intentionally present as female. I will address them by the name they give me, and female pronouns.
Why should that information be on birth certificate? What need is there for it? What use is there for it?
From the linked article
One the one hand, I was right in this prediction. I should be happy.
On the other hand, I was right in this prediction. I am despondent and panicked.
Back To The OP
Correct me if I am wrong, but under a law that says ‘There are only two sexes- male and female. The sex on a birth certificate cannot be changed’ wouldn’t any trans woman regardless of what stage of transition she is in be sent to men’s prison if incarcerated?
What if the student’s name is “Pat”?
Yeah, what the fuck? This is insane. It’s like a Republican’s caricature of a Democrat.
What problem is this supposed to resolve?
I see two possibilities-
You are being sarcastic.
You have not read my posts or the linked article.
Which one is it?
You’re right, there is an actual problem. That problem is transphobia, not the fact that birth certificates have people’s sex on them.
The solution is addressing transphobia, not pretending that sex doesn’t exist.
Do you really think that if only we had no gender on birth certificates, Republicans would just shrug and say, “aww shucks, guess we don’t know who to persecute then”?
You don’t think that there’s any reason for the state to have someone’s sex on file?
If trans people want to change their official government recognized sex, they should be able to. But we shouldn’t not have a government recognized sex, because there are cases where we as a society agree that the government should treat you differently depending on your sex, and in order to do so they need to know what sex you are. Even if it isn’t permanent.
Sex exists. But what’s the function of having it on birth certificates. Hair color exists, but it’s not on my birth certificate.
Neither?
Your posts don’t actually highlight a problem that is resolvable by removing gender from birth certificates.
Correct me if I am wrong, but if the government abolished recognition of people’s sex, how would the government be able to even have men’s and women’s prisons?
It doesn’t need to be on the birth certificate, specifically. But if it was anywhere else, you still have the same issue where the government can go after you for being trans?
No, I do not. Could you provide one?
For a time, they were able to do so. All signs point to that time coming to an end.
Under Trump, you will always and forever be the sex on your birth certificate. Again, a trans woman who has long been on HRT, and has had gender affirming surgery would still be a man under the law. She would be required to use facilities designated for men. If incarcerated, she would be placed in a men’s prison.
Again, it is not quite yet impossible to change the sex on your birth certificate. It very soon will be. It will, in fact, be permanent.
I suggest you read them again.
Who said anything about the government abolishing recognition of people’s sex? All I and others have said is that sex does not need to be listed on birth certificates. Passports, driver’s licenses etc currently rely on a birth certificate for a person’s sex. They could no longer do that. They would need to find a new way. The easiest would be to ask the person obtaining the new document.
The purpose of the birth certificate is to create an identification paper trail, to ensure that when a person comes to a business or a government office, that they are actually the person that they say they are.
The more detail about the baby, the more useful it is for purposes of identification.
It’s a medical record. You’re recording what, in that moment, the physical status is of the person. There’s no greater nor less meaning to it than that, nor need for there to be any.
So why did the government take race off of birth certificates?
Birth certificates ought to contain sufficient information to identify an individual. Baby footprints won’t be reliable for very long. A DNA sample would clear up any confusion about identity but I can see people generally objecting to the idea of a DNA database that includes every person born henceforth, and probably the same reaction to tattooing or implanting a chip in every newborn. I suppose some blood type info and other designations might be acceptable.
Okay, sure. But:
- A trait that roughly half the population shares doesn’t exactly narrow down the identification very much; and
- To the extent it’s relied on for identification, it creates room for error in identification with trans folks or folks who just don’t conform to gender stereotypes; and
- To the extent that people rely on it, it leads to false positives, especially for people of color, especially Black males; and
- When was the last time that you relied on the sex on your birth certificate for identification?
This isn’t a solution in search of a problem; it’s a solution to a solution in search of a problem.