Changing your birth certificate should require GRS

[Natasha]

Changing your birth certificate should require GRS

http://ben-girl-notesfromthetside.blogspot.com/2011/05/changing-your-birth-certificate.html
5/18/11
By Elizabeth

This is another one of my pet peeves.  If one has not had corrective surgery then one should not be able to change a birth certificate to F for female. In a ways this is a difficult position for me to take because I have several friends that have not had surgery and cannot change their birth certificates. One does not believe she should be able to and the other will be madder than a hatter at me for saying what I am about to say but so be it.

If a MTF transsexual has not had GRS then they should not be able to change their birth certificates. If a FTM transsexual has not had a hysterectomy and top surgery they should not be able to change their birth certificate.

[JungianZoe]

I just love people who advocate full rights only for those privileged enough to afford them, and care not one whit about the struggles others go through... Not to mention the struggles that others are forced to endure through no fault of their own.  Someone who gets cancer and isn't a candidate for SRS?  Let 'em suffer more!

Burns me up... 

[Megan Joanne]

Personally, I don't think birth certificate should be changed at all, you were born a certain body, can't change the past, but do think that there should be something still to show that those that have gone through sex reassignment surgery are indeed no longer the sex they were born as, and therefore accepted in place of original birth certificate. But if you haven't, and still have your birth parts, no way, you still got a penis, unfortunately still a guy in body even if not in mind, because society only looks at the physical aspects, same if born with a vagina. So much as I'd like to be viewed completely as a woman in every way, including legally in documentation such as birth certificate, or even I.D., its not possible with my wrong parts, and I completely understand why.

Does it bother me, of coarse, but I'm not going to make a big stink about it, but hearing that some other can, and one that doesn't even have any desire at that to be the opposite sex can do so, this just pisses me off. As is, because I'm unchanged down below, I have to live with an 'M' on my I.D. as a constant reminder that I don't fit in as a genuine woman. It has always worried me to show my I.D. to anyone because of that 'M'. Oh, but this past I.D. that I had renewed, the clerk wasn't paying attention, she instead of reading everything on the application as well as my old I.D. just made assumptions, she saw me as female, which is no wonder I wasn't asked for all the usual stuff, proof of my existance, being transsexual, and was surprised, pleasantly so, when I got my I.D. in the mail and it showed me as 'F', female. I wasn't about to show them the error, their screw up, not mine, but I bet next time it'll be changed back to 'M' once they realize their error. At least for now I can feel more comfort in that if someone sees my I.D., I won't have to explain anything. I'm a woman, but still legally, only in my own mind, not in body, therefore not a woman.

If everyone was able to change their birth certificates so easily, changing on there their sex even when sex hasn't been changed, it'd get pretty messed up, such as one who is clearly a man, just likes to play at being a woman sometimes yet still enjoys being a man, still gets off like the average man, still enjoys women sexually, able though to get birth certificate changed for whatever excuse given, now uses women's restrooms because he is deemed a woman legally even though not, not even in mind, then women are uncomfortable because of possible pervertism (yeah, the guy jackin' off in the next stall over, eew). Its different for those that are transsexual, we, even though not physically, are the opposite sex of that which we were born as physically, we're just looking to fit in, no harm intended towards anyone (other than ourselves at times), and here even with this, we have a hard enough time with changing even simpler documentations, such as I.D. or driver's license, because we aren't physically therefore would be considered fraud, even if not intending to for any reason other than to protect ourselves.

[Lisbeth]

I bet next time it'll be changed back to 'M' once they realize their error. At least for now I can feel more comfort in that if someone sees my I.D., I won't have to explain anything. I'm a woman, but still legally, only in my own mind, not in body, therefore not a woman.

A birth certificate is a legal document, not a medical document. And the halls of government are filled with "legal fiction."

[rejennyrated]

Personally, I don't think birth certificate should be changed at all, you were born a certain body, can't change the past, but do think that there should be something still to show that those that have gone through sex reassignment surgery are indeed no longer the sex they were born as, and therefore accepted in place of original birth certificate. But if you haven't, and still have your birth parts, no way, you still got a penis, unfortunately still a guy in body even if not in mind, because society only looks at the physical aspects, same if born with a vagina. So much as I'd like to be viewed completely as a woman in every way, including legally in documentation such as birth certificate, or even I.D., its not possible with my wrong parts, and I completely understand why.

Does it bother me, of coarse, but I'm not going to make a big stink about it, but hearing that some other can, and one that doesn't even have any desire at that to be the opposite sex can do so, this just pisses me off. As is, because I'm unchanged down below, I have to live with an 'M' on my I.D. as a constant reminder that I don't fit in as a genuine woman. It has always worried me to show my I.D. to anyone because of that 'M'. Oh, but this past I.D. that I had renewed, the clerk wasn't paying attention, she instead of reading everything on the application as well as my old I.D. just made assumptions, she saw me as female, which is no wonder I wasn't asked for all the usual stuff, proof of my existance, being transsexual, and was surprised, pleasantly so, when I got my I.D. in the mail and it showed me as 'F', female. I wasn't about to show them the error, their screw up, not mine, but I bet next time it'll be changed back to 'M' once they realize their error. At least for now I can feel more comfort in that if someone sees my I.D., I won't have to explain anything. I'm a woman, but still legally, only in my own mind, not in body, therefore not a woman.

If everyone was able to change their birth certificates so easily, changing on there their sex even when sex hasn't been changed, it'd get pretty messed up, such as one who is clearly a man, just likes to play at being a woman sometimes yet still enjoys being a man, still gets off like the average man, still enjoys women sexually, able though to get birth certificate changed for whatever excuse given, now uses women's restrooms because he is deemed a woman legally even though not, not even in mind, then women are uncomfortable because of possible pervertism (yeah, the guy jackin' off in the next stall over, eew). Its different for those that are transsexual, we, even though not physically, are the opposite sex of that which we were born as physically, we're just looking to fit in, no harm intended towards anyone (other than ourselves at times), and here even with this, we have a hard enough time with changing even simpler documentations, such as I.D. or driver's license, because we aren't physically therefore would be considered fraud, even if not intending to for any reason other than to protect ourselves.

Please understand what I am going to say is not meant as an attack or criticism but I do feel that you may not understand the full implications of what you are saying, at least for those of us who live as postops in the UK in the 1980's, and who saw firsthand what happened...

I am sorry to have to say so but having LIVED with the consequence of that view in the UK until 2005 I find your view to be TOTALLY unacceptable. It may be different in other countries but here in the UK the way that our legal system interlocks means that one failure like that has a huge knock on which in effect meant that postops had no legal rights that could be reliably enforced.

Many of us took the risk anyway, but the fact was we stepped into a world where we could seldom get justice because the consequence in UK law of having an incongruent birth certificate meant that you legal opponent could almost always find a way to use this fact to open up loopholes and defeat you. So in effect you might as well come right out and say that you think that SRS should be illegal in the UK - because that was pretty well the upshot of the position that you espouse.

You clearly can have no idea how many horrendous injustices and complications to life were caused under UK law to postop women by just this very situation.

For example there was a case in which a postop woman who had been violently RAPED was unable to gain legal redress because the UK legal system said that rape required an organ (a vagina) which as a male she could not have. Then to add insult to injury her attacker was granted leave to sue her for indecent assault on the grounds that he had been tricked into a homosexual act!

People used to routinely be sent to the wrong prisons where they then spent their entire sentence in solitary confinement. Those of us using bathrooms, public pools, or changing facilities had to regularly commit a legal offense in order to do so safely. Marriage was all but impossible. Tax and national insurance records had to be coded as male, so ensuring that stealth was impossible in employment etc etc etc.

Some of us were lucky and had friends who had the ability to ahem... err shall we say "finesse" official records for various reasons...  so we had an easier life than most - but for many many trans-people that position made having a normal psotop life very difficult if not impossible.

I'm sure you don't meant all that to happen. But the fact is even the UK government, when they finally looked at the problem logically realised that the simplest and fairest thing was to amend the record.

Anyway the bottom line is that those of us who seek to do this simply DO NOT accept that we were the sex recorded in any real meaningful sense. If you do then clearly we disagree fairly fundamentally. I will admit to being intersex - I do NOT accept that I was ever male and therefore the change to the certificate was merely correcting an error which only occurred because at the time of birth medical science did not have the gene test available which later confirmed my status as PAIS intersex.

Now yes, you may say, but what about non intersex transsexuals? Well I believe that eventually even that will be shown to be a very special form of intersex condition. Meanwhile, although there may not yet be totally conclusive evidence I believe that where those people genuinely believe that their birth record does not reflect the truth then they should of course be allowed to change it. To take another view is to lay yourself open to having perpetrated a massive injustice on people who did not deserve it simply because the medical evidence was not yet fully discovered. I prefer compassion.

[Dawn D.]

I commented on the post that is linked at the top of this page. I stand by my reasoning for altering a birth certificate as I commented. I simply see a host of trouble coming if a person hasn't actually gone through with reassignment surgery of what ever flavor you want to describe it.

However, I think there's another potential in all of this discussion over changing a sex marker on a  birth certificate. What makes more sense to me is an idea that I believe I read in a thread on Susan's somewhere in which the poster stated that they didn't feel a birth certificate should have a sex marker at all. It's a novel idea. Although, it likely would require a MAJOR cultural shift concerning the definition of sex vs. gender in just about all corners of the globe in order for it to work. Which is highly likely to never, ever happen.


Dawn

[rejennyrated]

Yeah just to clarify - my comments were mainly in relation to those who have had SRS.

I personally am slightly uncomfortable with the non-op situation but on the other hand I am fully aware that they too need legal protections - and so my position on change for non surgical people is that I support it but only with some reservations and caveats.

[Dawn D.]

And Dawn, if someone is so dopey as to decide to wait to have sex till after marriage (do people still do that? why!?)... I have limited sympathy for any "surprises" that arise.

Sorry, I'm perhaps a little too "modern" to take much of this seriously.

Sorry, just call me old fashioned. LOL

That's what you get with an 'old broad' on this site!

Actually though, in what I read about the ongoing saga of the Nikki Araguz case, and apparently by her own admission; her and her husband were already married when she went to get her surgery completed. And, if memory serves she stated that they hadn't had sexual relations up to the point of her surgery. It would seem this is the crux of her opponents argument against her in court. That her husband didn't know. If I am wrong about this, I apologize up front. But, it just seems that this is what I had read from her or a spokesperson of hers.

Therefore, if true we already have precedent in such matters. No?


Dawn

[Megan Joanne]

Please understand what I am going to say is not meant as an attack or criticism but I do feel that you may not understand the full implications of what you are saying, at least for those of us who live as postops in the UK in the 1980's, and who saw firsthand what happened...

I am sorry to have to say so but having LIVED with the consequence of that view in the UK until 2005 I find your view to be TOTALLY unacceptable. It may be different in other countries but here in the UK the way that our legal system interlocks means that one failure like that has a huge knock on which in effect meant that postops had no legal rights that could be reliably enforced.

Many of us took the risk anyway, but the fact was we stepped into a world where we could seldom get justice because the consequence in UK law of having an incongruent birth certificate meant that you legal opponent could almost always find a way to use this fact to open up loopholes and defeat you. So in effect you might as well come right out and say that you think that SRS should be illegal in the UK - because that was pretty well the upshot of the position that you espouse.

You clearly can have no idea how many horrendous injustices and complications to life were caused under UK law to postop women by just this very situation.

For example there was a case in which a postop woman who had been violently RAPED was unable to gain legal redress because the UK legal system said that rape required an organ (a vagina) which as a male she could not have. Then to add insult to injury her attacker was granted leave to sue her for indecent assault on the grounds that he had been tricked into a homosexual act!

People used to routinely be sent to the wrong prisons where they then spent their entire sentence in solitary confinement. Those of us using bathrooms, public pools, or changing facilities had to regularly commit a legal offense in order to do so safely. Marriage was all but impossible. Tax and national insurance records had to be coded as male, so ensuring that stealth was impossible in employment etc etc etc.

Some of us were lucky and had friends who had the ability to ahem... err shall we say "finesse" official records for various reasons...  so we had an easier life than most - but for many many trans-people that position made having a normal psotop life very difficult if not impossible.

I'm sure you don't meant all that to happen. But the fact is even the UK government, when they finally looked at the problem logically realised that the simplest and fairest thing was to amend the record.

Anyway the bottom line is that those of us who seek to do this simply DO NOT accept that we were the sex recorded in any real meaningful sense. If you do then clearly we disagree fairly fundamentally. I will admit to being intersex - I do NOT accept that I was ever male and therefore the change to the certificate was merely correcting an error which only occurred because at the time of birth medical science did not have the gene test available which later confirmed my status as PAIS intersex.

Now yes, you may say, but what about non intersex transsexuals? Well I believe that eventually even that will be shown to be a very special form of intersex condition. Meanwhile, although there may not yet be totally conclusive evidence I believe that where those people genuinely believe that their birth record does not reflect the truth then they should of course be allowed to change it. To take another view is to lay yourself open to having perpetrated a massive injustice on people who did not deserve it simply because the medical evidence was not yet fully discovered. I prefer compassion.

Thank you for enlightening me, I guess because I've never really had any serious problems that I never put much thought into it regarding that others may not have it so easy, that for some it would have to be a requirement just for survival. Thinking that over more, I think even such a thing as a simple piece of paper with an 'M' or 'F' on it is somehow in some way much more significant than a change of genitals, because unlike those parts which are rarely if at all going to be seen by others, that piece of documentation will be and whatever it says on it is going to have a big impact on how you are viewed and treated. If I were able to change my birth certificate I most certainly would just as much as anyone else for the same reasons. But if I were given a no (actually I was refused, back when I got my name change, I didn't apply to have my birth certificate changed, but I guess it was something they automatically did, because I got a letter from the state I was born in saying that they would not change my sex on birth certificate, I was like...okay, I didn't ask anyone to anyway), it wouldn't upset me too much either, but I guess I'm in a better position than most, as is I rarely see my birth certificate (its only used when getting my I.D. renewed every few years), never travel, definitely not out of country, so no need for passport, and even my I.D. even when it had a big 'M' on it, most never noticed it only because assumptions are easier than reading, plus I rarely use my I.D. anyway, what to cash my check, that's about it, or if getting interviewed for a new job (which is a rarity since I barely make it to that point since I tend to fail the computer personality questionaires).

[JungianZoe]

The difficulty in my mind is how does the government authority know if the issue is an acknowledged, accepted condition of the individual or a lark, or sexually motivated, or even for reasons of committing fraud? How does the government determine truth?

There's no system that's going to be perfect in that it will weed out 100% of determined charlatans, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't establish a system for those who need it.  Cads exist, and that's a fact of life that will never change.  People defraud welfare, but welfare is still there for those in hard times.  People create businesses meant to steal other people's money, but the right to start a business hasn't been revoked.  People rob banks, but banks are still open six days a week.

If we let the fear of bad people stop us, we'd never progress.

[JungianZoe]

All true, cant argue with any of that.

Maybe then it comes down to personal views and bias, and governments have difficulty since they are made up of individuals too.

Also, should the world system change for a small minority? Are we as large a group as, say, handicap people?

We may not be as large a group as the handicapped, but we're still a group with needs that can easily be met with the stroke of a pen.  And it's not just governments who screw things up the first time, many of us as individuals do likewise, but we (well, most of us) learn from our mistakes, change our approach, and achieve satisfactory conclusions.  And since governments are, as you said, made up of individuals, it's bound to happen there too.

My own belief is that there's no group too small to receive the rights that let them live as easily as the majority, so long as those rights aren't infringing on the rights of others to achieve the same.  And when I mean "right," I'm probably talking about the ability to live one's life to its fullest capacity, because rights for some people are always going to frustrate those who believe otherwise, but that frustration isn't life-altering, nor does it impede day-to-day functioning.  Yes, I'm talking about things like gay marriage, civil rights, etc.  Many religious fundamentalists and racists are going to be unhappy with both pieces of legislation, but these laws aren't impacting their ability to succeed in life.

So the basic argument, as I see it, is who does this legislation help and who does it fundamentally impact?  Would giving transsexuals the right to alter their birth certificates really impact the lives of non-transsexuals or impede their chances for success?  It would certainly provide an equal playing field for transsexuals as a corrected birth certificate reduces the chances of discrimination and potential barriers to our success.  In the case of post-ops, the process should be smooth.  You've had the surgery, you're serious, here you go.  But many of us want surgery and can't get it right now for whatever reason (usually financial).  Tragically, some may never be able get it due to health issues.  Those people shouldn't have to live in fear of barriers that an uncorrected birth certificate might erect against success... success that may provide the means to obtaining the dream of having surgery!

[Dawn D.]

Also, should the world system change for a small minority? Are we as large a group as, say, handicap people?

Val, I think if we could get removed, the exclusion from the ADA for transsexuals as a non covered group, a whole lot of doors would open for us! The problem as I see it though, is too many of us do not want to be categorized as being handicapped.


Dawn

[Izumi]

Val, I think if we could get removed, the exclusion from the ADA for transsexuals as a non covered group, a whole lot of doors would open for us! The problem as I see it though, is too many of us do not want to be categorized as being handicapped.


Dawn

I dont see a problem with it, the term implies that it is more difficult for you to do everyday life without treatment or training.  For example blind people can live normally with treatment and training, using a walking stick, using a seeing eye dog, etc..  In our case we need medical treatment through drugs and surgeries before we can compete and live comfortably within our place society, isnt that the same thing really. 

Basically life wasnt fair, i didnt start out with the tools everyone else had, i have to take extra steps to correct this before i can live a normal life thereby making my life more difficult then the average person, this is what all people under ADA face, so i have no problem being listed under ADA.  I think what people have a problem with is blind people dont choose, but society thinks we choose to be TS, we have to dispel that myth before we can move forward.

[darklady]

Many sources claim that Illinois was the first state in the USA to allow changes for the birthcertificates after the SRS.

[Dawn D.]

Basically life wasnt fair, i didnt start out with the tools everyone else had, i have to take extra steps to correct this before i can live a normal life thereby making my life more difficult then the average person, this is what all people under ADA face, so i have no problem being listed under ADA.  I think what people have a problem with is blind people dont choose, but society thinks we choose to be TS, we have to dispel that myth before we can move forward.

You're right, Izumi. Life is not fair. Yet, I think life is intentionally that way. But, we as a species - supposedly having an evolving sense of compassion and concern for the "common man" - are by design care takers for those less fortunate. Or, so says the religious and other egalitarian doctrines. Still, the overwhelming majority seem to be able (even in the face of substantial mounting evidence) find a way to turn our collective backs on some 'groups' of need, because of prejudice, fear and misunderstanding. And, let's just be honest, blatant, outright bigotism!

The latter is the sole reason for transsexuals not being included as covered in the ADA. Thank you very much, Senator's Armstrong and Helms !

But, back to the issue. You and I may not have an issue being listed as included under the ADA, but there are quite a number of others from within our ranks who just seem to want to avoid this issue all together. I've spoken with one in which she flat out told me that she was "not disabled" and essentially refused to consider this as viable.

If we were able to remove that exclusion, you wouldn't need an ENDA. Insurance companies could no longer exclude the need for reassignment surgeries as a cosmetic choice. The issuance of altered birth certificates would also likely become a non-issue, too.

The way I see it, there are just way more positives in this approach to ignore. I think removing the exclusion would be far simpler a political task than piece-mealing together cumbersome legislation that becomes bogged down in contentiousness.

Anyway, just my 2 1/2 cents worth.


Dawn