Haha yes, that was a joke.
Um, yeah? Up until this thread today it never occurred to me to conciser it otherwise–a historical record of a birthdate, name of the child, and whatever else is written on it (it has been many years since I’ve looked at mine–I remember something with inked footprints on it–do any birth certificates use footprints?) Sort of like a hospital/government receipt of the birth. I would no more have considered changing a birth certificate kosher than to change a newspaper headline from 20 years ago, or edit a photo. If a birth certificate isn’t a fixed historical document, then why does that not help support the position of the Obama birthers? After all, if a birth certificate can be altered to change name, sex, whatever, why couldn’t it be altered to change location?
I’m not aware of any legal circumstance in which location would be altered. Also, the certificate isn’t altered, it’s reissued, as if the first one had never existed. That’s why I got a new social security number. It’s as if Spice Birthname never legally existed. It does complicate things, most recently when I applied to adopt a child of my own. “By the way, I was this other person for thirteen years.”
It’s not like there is a government free for all on issuing new birth certificates without a carefully documented reason. It’s a complicated process.
I do think it’s a bit odd, but I presume the government handles adoption that way for a good reason.
The problem is, there will be historical records that can’t be altered. For instance, census forms. I’ve dug up and downloaded census records of my ancestors going back to the mid-1800s, discovering people and demographic data that wasn’t recorded in any other family records. The census forms list children by name, age, and sex. So at some point in the future, a historian looking up their genealogy will find John, male, age 7 listed in on a census form, then find John, male, age 17 on the next one, and then John will disappear from the record.
Does anyone know if there is any legal record when a birth certificate is reissued?
Do you know anyone who was adopted in a closed adoption? That is, an adoption where the child does not know who the birth parents are, nor do the adoptive parents?
Even in an open adoption,the bc would be reissued, because it’s not a historical document, it’s a legal identifying document: “this person exists.” I do not know if a child who is adopted internationally gets a domestic birth certificate as a result of the adoption.
Do closed adoptions still occur? I know they are less frequent than in the past, but not if they’ve been abolished altogether.
Sorry, but Una is dead right on this one. I’ve known exactly one transman in real life. He got fired in Canada for that reason. He’s found a better job now, but he had a definite uphill struggle to find work. This was in BC too, so you can’t blame this one on Alberta.
Anyway, the point remains. A birth certificate is not an immutable document, and has not historically been treated as such, irrespective of trans issues. It’s more for the purposes of identity than historical record.
Honestly, I don’t know how frequent they are now. One of my best friends was adopted in a closed adoption but that was 40 years ago.
I recently got a job, and among documents I could bring to the I9 verification were birth certificate, social security card, a few other things - but a lot of the documents we use to identify ourselves start with a birth certificate.
Yes, I’m going through the adoption process now (waiting list) and can confirm that it’s the reissuance of the birth certificate that makes the child legally ours. She said it takes about six weeks on average between the date of the child’s birth and the new certificate to be issued; e.g adoption finalized. All the work required to issue that new certificate is what we are paying out the nose for. We are choosing open adoption so that is the case regardless of the type of adoption.
I would bet money it’s similar for international adoption.
Yep, this could happen. As a historian, I can’t say I will lose sleep over it. You wouldn’t believe the size of the holes in the historical record.
Well, there’s your problem, then. That’s not what it is. It is, first and foremost, and identification document. It exists to establish a person’s legal identity. We don’t spend millions and millions of dollars keeping these records so that future people can know that John Smith was born on April 3rd, 1995 in Outer Saginaw. We have them so that John Smith can prove that he was born 23 years ago, and would very much like a beer now, thank you, if he can get the bartender’s attention. Or, in this particular case, yes, Joan Smith is a woman, it says so on every legal document she has, including her birth certificate, so stop giving her shit for showing up for Ladies Drink Free Night and give her a damned Heineken already.
Their use as historical documents is a bonus, but it shouldn’t impede the certificates actual purpose, which is identification in the here and now, and not documentation for the edification of future researchers. If being able to change the parentage, name, or gender on the form makes it easier for the person the form identifies to navigate through society, then the form absolutely should be allowed to change.
I don’t recall ever seeing anyone argue against Birtherism by saying that birth certificates were fixed historical documents that could never be changed. If someone did make that argument, they were wrong.
If I know anyone that was adopted at all, I don’t know about the adoption. I have known people who have adopted children themselves, but never been particularly curious about learning the details.
No one is asking anyone to “magically erase” anything from their minds. Just not talk about the old them using their old name or gender.
There’s all sorts of things normal people don’t talk about with respect to their friends, even if several people know the history. Why? Because it’s not the goddamn business of third-parties, and some shit just doesn’t need to be talked about again and again AND again. “Jane looks so much thinner since her abortion.” “Bob never really got back on his feet after that time in jail for drunk driving.” “Hey Carol, how’s your kid doing with the cleft palate reconstruction? He looks almost normal to me.” “I’m glad Stacy divorced Tom. We all remember he was beating her, right?”
No one is asking anyone to “magically erase” anything from their minds, just show some basic human compassion, sensitivity, and common sense. Hardly “Orwellian,” that.
First, people disappear from censuses all the time, names are misspelled, and yes even genders recorded inaccurately. Seen it all the time when working in them.
Second, individual census records are sealed for 72 years. Most legal transitions happen at age 16 or older. Almost always at age 18 in the case of re-issuing birth certificates.
I suppose if someone wants to go and blab to everyone and their cat about how 90-year-old June (if she’s still alive) was once “John” at some point, well, no one can stop them from being an asshole. Seems like a rather poor choice of hobby.
Yup. The guy described in the OP could also easily be the kind of person who signals status by advertising how much they know about other people. We all know this type.
It’s not enough for them to just say they’ve known Jane for a long time. Nope, that won’t do, because anyone can just say that. To impress people, they feel a need to show off that they are “in” enough to know something notable others might not know.
Well, bury the needle on my Irony Meter…
Perhaps it occurred to him that it was none of his fucking business?
We’re halfway there.
I think if anyone he knows *is *adopted, they haven’t mentioned it because he apparently feels that *not *blurting out private details is the same as “altering history.”
ETA: My friend who was adopted always knew it; it was never a secret. But having certain nasty relatives pointedly remind her on a regular basis that she was adopted (in case she forgot or something ?) was extremely hurtful.