Well, I've already got in trouble once with this subject.
It's just a philosophical question, just among us.
Politically, I support anything that will make life easier for us.
The question came up about altering birth certificates.
One could maintain that a birth certificate is a record of a historical fact and should represent what actually happened.
Others could counter that an actual mistake in gender identification was made at that point in time and should be fixed.
(Me, personally, I think that at my birth it was not unreasonable to write "Boy" down in the birth certificate.)
I certainly believe that all current forms of ID, passport, driver's license, credit cards, library cards, etc.
should be able to be easily and quickly altered to reflect a person's gender and name.
I think that requiring SRS is a huge obstacle to many people and causes discrepancies
when one agency will accept a doctor's letter and another only a surgeon's SRS letter.
One of the aspects that makes birth certificates so touchy, is that although they are not
commonly used as day to day identification, they are used as proof for altering practical ID's.
My question is, how much do we want to alter historical records?
Should it be possible to alter marriage certificates? Birth certificates of our former children?
I don't really know, that's why I'm asking.
For me, I'll be happy when all my current ID's are all in complete agreement.
I may change my birth certificate, I may not.
We should understand that no birtcertificate change = no change of legal gender. So simply.
One of the problems with gender and name on various things is that the
laws and regulations are all mixed up and different in every jurisdiction.
In most of the US, I believe that with a sugeon's SRS letter and a court-ordered
name change you can get every single bit of current ID altered correctly.
For places where this is not the case, maybe we should be fighting the requirement
that a very old piece of paper determines what gender one legally is in the present day.
It is too utopist. I asked what in one state that gives a birthcertificate want to see to believe that you are member of your target sex. The answer was simply: In all purposes you would be member of your birthsex until new birthcertificate tells other. And it does not mean only marriage that needs a new birthcertificate in all states.
Ah, Ok. Marriage is a good point. I'm not sure of that one.
When I got married I never used my birth certificate.
I don't know, I tend to adopt the philosophy that my birth certificate showing 'male' isn't an accurate reflection of who I am now, and have always been, since I am sure I was actually born female, but with a pretty big birth defect, namely being male-bodied. So, in my opinion, it doesn't represent what actually happened anyway.
And I think that my external appearance is of less importance, or rather is not as significant to who I am, than my heart, mind and soul.
So when my exterior appearance matches my interior... everything else, then yes, I do think it's right to change my birth certificate to show what it should have shown from the start. :)
Quote from: Renate on November 01, 2008, 07:46:35 AM
I think that requiring SRS is a huge obstacle to many people and causes discrepancies
when one agency will accept a doctor's letter and another only a surgeon's SRS letter.
One of the aspects that makes birth certificates so touchy, is that although they are not
commonly used as day to day identification, they are used as proof for altering practical ID's.
And that's just it. Birth Certificates aren't really used to find out one's sex at birth, they're generally used to determine current sex - since it's assumed it would never change. I don't mind if the government keeps my original birth sex on record, as they might need to know that. But an employer (etc.) isn't looking to see how I was born, just how I AM, so I don't think anyone else needs to know.
But I know, I kinda have an ethics problem with it myself. I'm glad I could change it, and yet it seems wrong to claim I was born female. I like that I'm able to erase most of my history, and yet... why do we have to? Is it because we're ashamed of being TS? I love the congruence, and yet I have to wonder why we need it so badly.
It reminds me of how I'm always saying that the people in my life don't WANT to know I'm TS. THEY change the subject when it comes up. THEY want to believe I've always been female. So I wonder if letting us change our BCs reflects that attitude too - that it's just easier for everyone if we pretend our current reality has
Always Been, that sex changes just don't happen... once they have, lol.
Kate
So you want be male for all legal purposes after SRS? Do you also support so called ''Annwyn'' prison policy that comes from it?
Tbh... if you WERE male when born... then you shouldnt be transitioning no? Afterall, if transition is correcting a mistake, there is no edditing of history occuring? just fixing a typo.... I cant see a problem in it personally. But i guess for people who live more of thier life before transitioning, it may with regards to college transcripts and highschool.... Who i was then wont change. but I was never a male, so that record is really not requiring changing, just correcting.... does that make sense?
Quote from: goingdown on November 01, 2008, 11:20:44 AM
So you want be male for all legal purposes after SRS? Do you also support so called ''Annwyn'' prison policy that comes from it?
Huh? I'm not sure if this was addressed to me or not, but...
No, my current sex is female (after SRS), and should be recorded on all my documents as such. What I said was that I may not mind if the government - and only the government - knew that I was *originally* born male somehow, as that was the factual event. But no one else needs to know that, they just need to know what I am NOW. If an employer (etc.) wanted to see my birth certificate, they should *only* see FEMALE on it.
Kate
So you accept being sent to male prison if you break the law after SRS, Kate?
Quote from: goingdown on November 01, 2008, 11:48:43 AM
So you accept being sent to male prison if you break the law after SRS, Kate?
Hmmm. We seem to be misunderstanding one another.
No. I am female now, post-SRS. Hence, I go to female prison. I am subject to all the rights and privileges of any other female. Having the government know that I was BORN male doesn't mean that I AM male. I said my birth certificate should say female. All my documents should say female. In all and every possible way I am to be considered and treated as a normal female now.
Kate
Sorry, I understand your point. I just wanted to say that person birthcertificate is very much same than legal sex. For younger not changing it would mean no marriage or possibility for family.
depends, if you didnt change it theres always a 'civil union' but it all seems a bit gay.... then agian... a translesbian that didnt change it COULD marry.... hinky stuff...
I live in the country where gays and lesbians have only modest civil unions but a pre-op transwoman can marry a man after changing her legal sex that does not need SRS . What does that sound?
You are american yes?
Im just wondering... because in your option 8 topic, you actually AGREEED That gays and lesbians should only have civil unions, as 'marriage is between a man and a woman.' Im confused honey. You're view seems to shift with the wind...
I am from Europe Rachael. I just follow the world events. And yes I am not a supporter for propositon 8. In case I would live in California election day vote would be very likely No. There were just discussion about priorities and western culture tradition.
but you said you WOULD vote for prop8 in your other topic? im confused...
europe? right... not england im guessing... anywhere fun?
Not anywhere fun Rachael. And no not in the UK.
Well i was just asking....
Quote from: goingdown on November 01, 2008, 01:24:58 PM
I am from Europe Rachael. I just follow the world events. And yes I am not a supporter for propositon 8. In case I would live in California election day vote would be very likely No. There were just discussion about priorities and western culture tradition.
If proposition 8 passes, it can and probably will be used against trans people in heterosexual relationships.
I fail to see any moral or ethical reason to oppose same-sex marriage. There's no demonstrable harm to society in any state or nation that's legalized same-sex marriage, and religious objections are meaningless because "freedom of religion" does not mean "freedom to impose my religious beliefs on people who may not share them." In fact, I completely fail to understand why same sex couples getting married has any effect at all on heterosexual lives.
Also, "marriage is only between a man and a woman" derives itself from one narrow definition of marriage that is not in fact global - many cultures have had acknowledged marriages between people of the same sex. Sitting Bull may have had a two-spirit wife (with a male body).
I'd also like to point out that "marriage is only between a man and a woman" is not far ideologically from the idea that everyone assigned male grows up to be a man and everyone assigned female grows up to be a woman. The same people who argue strenuously against same-sex marriage also argue that trans women will rape and molest cis women and children in women's restrooms, showers, and locker rooms.
And when you said
QuoteI live in the country where gays and lesbians have only modest civil unions but a pre-op transwoman can marry a man after changing her legal sex that does not need SRS . What does that sound?
Does that mean you oppose the fact that the GRA in the UK allows legally changing the sex on your birth certificate pre-surgery (for an example, I realize you said you don't live in the UK).
Posted on: November 02, 2008, 06:43:58 pm
Quote from: Renate on November 01, 2008, 07:46:35 AM
My question is, how much do we want to alter historical records?
Should it be possible to alter marriage certificates? Birth certificates of our former children?
I don't really know, that's why I'm asking.
For me, I'll be happy when all my current ID's are all in complete agreement.
I may change my birth certificate, I may not.
It's difficult for me to discuss something on a philosophical plane that affects my life on a visceral, legal level.
I think the ability to alter these records is a necessity for trans and intersex people. I don't think it has anything to do with obfuscating "the truth" because the apparent truth being obfuscated would that we were born as cissexual members of our sex assigned at birth, and that's not the truth at all.
I also think there's too much social emphasis on the idea that trans people who don't disclose are somehow deceivers or tricksters for not revealing our histories. I think this is a much higher standard of disclosure than is expected of cis people under any circumstances.
If proposition 8 passes, it can and probably will be used against trans people in heterosexual relationships.
100% totally wrong. What it allows is two people to be married. Not "groom" or "bride" but Party 1 and Party 2. That's it. That's all.
Quote from: tekla on November 02, 2008, 08:41:18 PM
If proposition 8 passes, it can and probably will be used against trans people in heterosexual relationships.
100% totally wrong. What it allows is two people to be married. Not "groom" or "bride" but Party 1 and Party 2. That's it. That's all.
That's the state of affairs in California right now. Proposition 8 explicitly makes same-sex marriage illegal, and defines marriage as "between a man and a woman."
This has been used in court cases in the US to retroactively annul marriages between a cis man and a trans woman. It can and will be used against trans people in California, as long as they can find a judge who'll make a ruling as stupid as "XX = woman, XY = man"
Edited previous post because I accidentally implied that proposition 8 was the measure that would make same-sex marriage *legal* instead of making it *illegal*.
That's the state of affairs in California right now
The law only applies to California, who, in a long and proud tradition, really does not care much about the rest of the world.
State law may be cited in other states, but is never a precedent, so it does not matter to anyone else other than us.
Quote from: Lisa Harney on November 02, 2008, 08:44:38 PM
It can and will be used against trans people in California, as long as they can find a judge who'll make a ruling as stupid as "XX = woman, XY = man"
What does CA go by for determining sex as regards marriage? Birth Certificates? And if so, does CA allow TSs to change their BCs after... SRS? Or a therapists letter?
Kate
Its pretty easy to change that here. No SRS needed in all cases. Several ways to go. And its not about XXY or XYX, or XYZ, its a LEGAL DEAL BETWEEN TWO PARTIES. That's it, and that's all.
Quote from: tekla on November 02, 2008, 08:49:33 PM
That's the state of affairs in California right now
The law only applies to California, who, in a long and proud tradition, really does not care much about the rest of the world.
State law may be cited in other states, but is never a precedent, so it does not matter to anyone else other than us.
I think you totally misunderstood my point.
I was saying that if proposition 8 passes, heterosexual marriages involving a trans person will be vulnerable to the same kind of thing that's happened in Texas,
not that California will use Texas state law.
Are you arguing that it's okay to oppose same-sex marriage because in an ideal world, such a ban would not harm trans people?
Would someone please tell me why we let Texas back into the USA after the Civil War? But, there is no way that even a Texas lawyer could ever twist "Party A and Party B" into a gender, or sex deal.
Quote from: tekla on November 02, 2008, 10:13:46 PM
Would someone please tell me why we let Texas back into the USA after the Civil War? But, there is no way that even a Texas lawyer could ever twist "Party A and Party B" into a gender, or sex deal.
Texas isn't the only state where this has happened.
If proposition 8 passes, it won't be "party A" and "party B" anymore. It'll be one man, one woman, one groom, one bride, just like it was before.
Why is this making you defensive? I was criticizing someone else's assertion that marriage should be one man, one woman.
This is what proposition 8 will add to the state constitution: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008)#Proposed_amendment)
QuoteELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME-SEX COUPLES TO MARRY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Changes the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California. Provides that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Fiscal Impact: Over next few years, potential revenue loss, mainly sales taxes, totaling in the several tens of millions of dollars, to state and local governments. In the long run, likely little fiscal impact on state and local governments.
My reading of prop 8 agrees with Lisa... its very much a tool to ban anything but straight marriage...
Goingdown: why do i get a vibe from you in this and other threads that you do not like the idea that some places allow a m2f to change her legal sex before grs?
No one expects it to pass. Its going to fail, leaving the Cal. Supreme Court ruling of last year pertaining to SF allowing people to marry, regardless of sex or gender (there were several TS marriages in all that) will stand as the law. As it should be.
In the intentionally tricky wording of such deals - where yes means no, and no means yes - has the supporters of 'gay' marriage voting no, and people who don't like gay marriage voting yes, which will confuse a few people, as usual, but I think most people know what the deal is. And in the major urban areas the NO vote is huge, and a lot of people are expecting a low turnout among republicans due to the McCain/Palin debacle.
But, and here is the deal. Its California, and only California. Yet.... yet, yet - most of the money has come in from out of state (on both sides) and that's wrong. So, I have great discussions about Cali political stuff with people who live here, but if you don't, then you should be working in your political backyard, and not others.
Its not a national issue. yet.
And I for one, but I'm sure there are more, are not thrilled with people who this does not effect, can not vote on it, and do not live here, somehow feeling that its got something to do with them.
Nobody expects it to pass... just the time when things like that DO pass... because everyone assumes, and nobody votes :(
You are wrong Rachael. To get a law that works it could not be too unclear. I have read the Gender Recognition Act of 2004 and also the law'' about transsexuals sex change''. The last one is written badly.
I have nothing against to giving pre-ops for juridical sex change. I just think that laws should approriate not just done with left hand. (as our law that is worse than British Gender Recognition Act)
Posted on: November 03, 2008, 03:36:53 am
And what comes to California birthcertificates they have been long time allowed to change after SRS before ruling of same sex-marriage in this year. To be safe state legistlature should pass law about legal sex change.
I dont follow hon?
whats wrong with the british law?
I just compared our law the British law and said that the British law is better.
oh im sorry... i just find it hard to understand your english, my appologies.
Tbh the british law has been too long coming, and im glad it came when it did... kinks got sorted before i got there :)
Quote from: goingdown on November 03, 2008, 02:54:02 AM
I just compared our law the British law and said that the British law is better.
Sorry for misreading what you wrote, by the way. I don't know why I saw one word when its exact opposite was there instead.
Up to this morning, and several states still are allowing early voting, some 27 million people have already voted. Huge numbers. Only 122 million total voted in '04, so with a good chunk of that already in, those numbers will be passed.
P.S. One of the problems, or bright spots as it can work both ways is that in the US there is not one law, but fifty, each state setting up the requirements for changing documents. Which means in some places it not all that hard, in others, all but impossible.
And other surprise will be in one ''reliable'' blue state making republican rule to continue.
Quote from: tekla on November 03, 2008, 12:24:06 AM
But, and here is the deal. Its California, and only California. Yet.... yet, yet - most of the money has come in from out of state (on both sides) and that's wrong. So, I have great discussions about Cali political stuff with people who live here, but if you don't, then you should be working in your political backyard, and not others.
Its not a national issue. yet.
And I for one, but I'm sure there are more, are not thrilled with people who this does not effect, can not vote on it, and do not live here, somehow feeling that its got something to do with them.
This has been bothering me for a few days, and I finally remembered what was nagging at me:
Same-sex marriage is a national issue. It's been a national issue for years. While prop 8's passing or not passing will not explicitly and directly affect other states, it will become ammunition.
The "Yes on 8" campaign is also part of a larger fundamentalist movement that has been funding and organizing anti-LGBT activism nationally for at least the past 20 years (check out the Oregon Citizen's Alliance, for example, and the phrase "abnormal, wrong, unnatural, and perverse"). Focus on the Family, for example, is a fairly large part of that activism - hence their direct involvement in everything from the "Citizens for a Responsible Government/Not My Showers" attempt in Montgomery County to the trans rights legislation in Colorado to proposition 8. It's part of a concerted, sustained, decades-long effort to legitimize the treatment of LGBT people as second-class citizens.
So yes, a lot of money supporting prop 8 came from out of state - and money opposed. This happens frequently with measures like this.
As someone who's lived in more than one state where the same fundamentalist coalition has attempted to strip away or prevent rights (sometimes successfully - as in Oregon in 2004), I'm not sure why I shouldn't say anything about prop 8.
I also don't understand why, if you're in favor of it, you wanted to argue with me. It seemed like our discussion was bogged down with technicalities.
My response to goingdown was based on my misreading her post as saying
exactly the opposite of what she was saying, and I was trying to explain to her how "one man, one woman" interpretations have been used to harm trans people in the past, and probably will again in the future. It wasn't about prop 8's chances of passing, but "if you support prop 8, this is the kind of world you're in favor of."