The debate is over whether trans athletes who transitioned before undergoing male puberty have an advantage or not, and the evidence on that is mixed. But that’s also only a subset of all trans people. There is zero question about whether a trans woman who underwent male puberty and transitioned later, or a trans woman who never physically transitioned at all but did socially transition, has an advantage (obviously much bigger in the second case).
So even if we accept the claim that undergoing transition before male puberty occurs completely eliminates the male advantage in sports, a claim you need to provide evidence for if you accept it to actually be accepted, the government still has an interest in whether someone is or is not trans, so they can ask for the appropriate documentation to allow trans women to participate in female sports.
And if that truly happens, that’s a problem with the transphobic federal government, not with birth certificates.
My guess is that they’ll deny him, because they don’t need your permission to interpret the law as uncharitably as possible.
As far as I can tell, there is no way I can connect my birth certificate to me. None. Even my name is different. All it has on it is my name, my parents’ names and sex. When I say this is my birth certificate, you have to believe me.
Yeah. And birth weight, for all the good that will do. I’ve put on a few pounds since then. Maybe they could declare my actual weight to be the weight on my birth certificate?
Sports, whether governmental or nongovernmental, should be deciding trans and intersex cases on a case by case business, considering multiple factors to determine whether the specific individual actually has an unfair advantage in the specific sport.
Trans women are currently dealing with the disadvantages borne by cis women as well as the disadvantages borne by trans people. If they were raised as male until adulthood or near adulthood, they may not have been dealing with the disadvantages of being female in their childhoods; but neither has someone who socially transitioned as a young child, and that difference isn’t going to show up on a birth certificate.
I don’t know what you mean by a bad actor trying to abuse the transitioning process; but I don’t see how a statement on a birth certificate would tell such a person from a person who is not a bad actor who is trying to transition.
I’ve already discussed the prison issue.
And what, while we’re at it, do you suggest that we put on visibly intersex people’s birth certificates?
Which may not do so, as DNA doesn’t always match appearance at birth.
Nobody in this thread, maybe. Lots of people in the USA, though.
Whether this is a bright idea in the tactical sense seems to me to be a separate question from the question of whether it has made any sense, at least since photography became common, to have sex on birth certificates; which is only part of the much larger question of whether and in what circumstances the government has any business keeping track of anybody’s gender.
Rich and poor alike are forbidden to sleep under bridges.
Heterosexual and homosexual people were both free to marry someone of the “opposite” sex.
To clarify if necessary: your argument might work if trans people had no societal difficulties that cis people didn’t share. Which is not true.
And disputed; multiple times upthread, and also in this post.
In the real live world, that is at least impractible and often impossible for a whole lot of transgender people.
“Just move if you don’t like it” (yes I know that’s not a direct quote) is pretty awful advice as a “solution” for all sorts of abusive discrimination, this type included. It presupposes adulthood, plenty of money, nobody you’re unwilling to abandon and can’t take with you, and somewhere to move to that will let you move in. Oh, and a passport; which is to some extent where we came in.
I agree, and have said the same iniltiple threads.
Part of being able to make that case by case decision intelligently involves knowing the sex assigned at birth as well as the age of transition, which is where official documentation comes in.
OK? None of that changes the fact that some government grants or programs will still be targeting cis women. Others will be targeting trans women specifically, and still others might target all women.
It wouldn’t, by itself, but documenting sex assigned at birth as well as when transitions occur would be part of that.
Uh, intersex? Or whatever more specific medical term is appropriate depending on the situation.
My argument has nothing to do with that, so you must not have understood it.
I’ve read the thread, but perhaps I’ve missed this. As I understand it, intersex babies’ sex can be recorded either as whatever gender the parents/physicians assign at birth or as “X.” The X is a placeholder until the sex of the baby is decided upon.
Is the X replaced on the birth certificate once the sex of the baby is assigned? If so, then why not do this for all babies until the child reaches the age of majority and selects a gender? If not, why can’t birth certificates use X for every child born?
Like most people of my skin complexion, I was born blonde. Now I am a graying brunette.(does the feminine form work for old guys with brown hair?)
The trumpian proto-fascism is beyond horrifying to watch in action, and I live on the other side of the planet from you guys.
FWIW, we in South Africa have a National ID. Not entirely sure why the US does not have one. SS number is the closest equivalent, I guess.
Anyway, my ID number identifies me (using the Luhn algorythm) as white and male. My age, the fact I was born outside the country, some basic information is encoded in the 16 digits.
Newer IDs randomise the number that stand for race, and I expect we’ll soon randomise the digit for gender. Not bad for a shithole country.
Oh, and this shithole country allows you to change your registered gender. It is not easy, but it is possible.
There is a risk here of playing into the fearmongering of the opponent; “See?! They’re trying to take away our gender!” sort of thing.
I’m not saying I have a better idea, but this feels a bit like when same-sex marriage was not available, and some people were suggesting that maybe nobody should get to call it marriage - everyone just has a civil partnership - which, as a rhetorical statement to make married hetero people empathise, is great, but as an actual solution, it plays right into 'See!? They’re just trying to destroy our way of life!".
My RI government issue driver’s license states my hair color as blond, as does my niece’s. I’ve been mostly bald for years, and she has a new hair color every month or so…I’ve never heard of anyone getting their license updated after leaving the hair salon. It seems to me that makes the license no more useful for identification than having the current gender listed - or do we expect the police to require a full pants-down field check if we get pulled over for having a brake light out? Only your doctors, lovers (and hairdresser?) need to know for sure…
Sports also generally require physical exams. If somebody has transitioned so thoroughly that this can’t be detected in any way on such an exam, then I think it’s pretty unlikely that they’ve got an unfair advantage – as has been mentioned, it’s been shown in previous threads on this board that trans athletes often don’t appear to have such an advantage in actual competition even when their trans status can be detected. If their trans status can be detected as part of routine physical exams, then their medical records should be sufficient to determine the time of each stage of the transition. No need for it to be on the birth certificate.
Why would it have to be?
The medical records of transitioning are themselves sufficient evidence that the sex apparent before transition was different. The birth certificate’s not necessary.
The Trump administration is not allowing for that possibility. Male or female are the only things that exist and therefore the only things allowed, declares MAGA.
I’ve been wondering this for years about bathroom restriction bills. How are they to be enforced other than by having a pants-down check for everybody outside the bathroom door, before anyone’s allowed in? And I don’t suppose even that would catch everybody –
(Recently I went to a meeting at a brewery, and used one of the two bathrooms there. Both of them just said Telephone on the door. I am not a telephone but managed to figure this out.)
In Washington State, we don’t have a concept of legal sex. There’s the sex listed on your birth certificate and the sex listed on your driver’s license, both of which can be changed (independently) with no visible indication that they’ve been changed.