Suit aimed at 'unfair' transgender rule
ACLU CASE | Surgery wasn't in U.S., so state won't change sex on birth record

January 28, 2009
BY MIKE THOMAS Staff Reporter/mthomas@suntimes.com

http://www.suntimes.com/lifestyles/health/1400704,CST-NWS-transgend28.article

Although she was born a male, Chicago native Karissa Rothkopf knew from an early age that she was trapped in the wrong body.

More than three decades later, she underwent gender reassignment surgery in Thailand. The 36-year-old Wisconsin resident says her body now "is congruent with the person I always was."
» Click to enlarge image
Karissa Rothkopf (left) and Victoria Kirk are challenging the Illinois Vital Records division's refusal to change their birth certificates.
(Brian Jackson/Sun-Times)



She can't say the same for her birth certificate.

Because she had her December 2007 operation overseas and not in the United States, the Illinois Vital Records division refuses to correct her gender on the document in accordance with the state's Vital Records Act.

QuoteIllinois Vital Records division refuses to correct her gender on the document in accordance with the state's Vital Records Act.

It starts at the clerk level then they talk to an agreeing supervisor. I am involved in a similar situation with NYC Health and Vital records. They have a policy to correct Birth Certificates but they turn down many more than they approve. They also refuse to accept Thailand documents because they do not conform to NYC standards. Even a Court order name change done in another state is denied on such details of your birthday not on the court order. By Federal Law they are to honor these documents from other states.

It is not about doubt of gender or name change it is about personal views of the people that work for these government departments. They will do anything within their power to make life difficult for people that do things that are legal but not to their personal religious moral standards. Many SS clerks and Driver License clerks are in the same light. Perhaps these people do not need to be doing a secular government job.

Dayyam. I made the mistake of reading the comments section. The ignorance and misconceptions are so numerous that my mind is boggled.

Give me a minute to uncross my eyes.

Some of those laws in regard to "physicians" came from, guess who, -- give up?  The local white medicine men, errrr M.D's.  The law was also probably written in the pre 1920's. (ok pre 1880's)  Hopefully the lawsuit will land in the hands of some judge who will not try and palm off his study of law by candle light history.  Heck, even my own law study was done in flourescent light bulbs!!     The problem is that we have the best civil servants that the money we pay them will buy.    Most people cannot tolerate a civil servant who is smarter than they are, since in that case civil servant will equal civil master!!!.  But thats how it is any way, they are the underqualified, underpaid bloopies who nevertheless conduct the business of government.  In case you are wondering, I am one of them.  I know whereof I speak. 

What a completely unfair and tragic story... I hope for the best on her case.

Quote from: lisagurl on January 30, 2009, 03:21:59 PM
It is not about doubt of gender or name change it is about personal views of the people that work for these government departments. They will do anything within their power to make life difficult for people that do things that are legal but not to their personal religious moral standards. Many SS clerks and Driver License clerks are in the same light. Perhaps these people do not need to be doing a secular government job.

When I announced my transition at work, management had to research the applicable personnel rules and guidelines.  I firmly believe that the 'personal feelings' you mention led to the applicable rules and guidance being interpreted in the strictest fashion possible -- one that favoured christian 'defence of morality' or somesuch.

When such fundamentalists speak of "shoving [your lifestyle] down our throats", I get a feeling that that will be the ONLY way for any gains to be made.

The two plaintiffs in Illinois, and indeed ALL transgendered, will need to mount a huge, costly 'shock and awe' legal/marketing attack on this fundamentalist stance.

The ACLU involvement MAY be enough of a 'tactical nuclear' legal tool to accomplish the goal.

But there're many more states and jurisdictions, and many, many more fundamentalists...

Karen

There are also more subtle ways of changing the rules. I am in the process of talking to the health dept. legal counsel. They would rather avoid going to court. There are also various human rights departments and chain of command that understand a grand stand show could be avoided with some logical discussion.

Quote from: lisagurl on January 31, 2009, 04:00:40 PMThere are also various human rights departments and chain of command that understand a grand stand show could be avoided with some logical discussion.

I would say that we need grand stand shows to exist, to be real from time to time so that smart people will know what to want to avoid.

NOTE:  I'm totally against anything that is illegal.  No white powder or smouldering 'Mormon Brick's, no spray-painted slogans, no harassing e-mails.

Pressure can be legally applied.  Those that are media-smart can conceive and plan perfectly legal events that attract participants AND the media, AND get/keep the issues in the forefront.

And other things like this can keep more people willing to avoid issues being grand-standed.

=K

A smile is healthier than a club. Using the media which is for entertainment mostly is like being on Jerry Springer. It only tends to separate people under named groups and does little to remove fears. Living you life everyday in harmony with life is much more powerful way to change peoples attitude than marketing or the law.