You can login if you already have an account or register by clicking the button below.
Registering is free and all you need is a username and password. We never ask you for your e-mail.
Please reread my first comment. I argued that a birth certificate records information that is true at birth. Gender dysphoria doesn't retroactively alter biological sex at the time of birth.
It may be that not all states treat "birth" certificates in quite that way, and really do use them as records of a persons' current vital information. In that case, it might make sense to allow transgender people to update their birth certificates with their new genders.
Probably my bottom line is that a birth certificate is a state record, not property of the individual. The way a transgendered person's recorded sex on his birth certificate makes him feel must take a back seat if altering it would significantly disrupt how birth certificates are used in official business.
IANAL, but I don't think legal precedent works the way you seem to think. It doesn't mean that the procedures in one state are (or ought to be) binding on another. It means that past decisions of a court must be given appropriate weight in future ones.
I see no evidence for your claim that a birth certificate is a record of your biological sex at birth. In fact, I see the opposite, given that so many states allow you to update it.
Probably my bottom line is that a birth certificate is a state record, not property of the individual.
And the state likes their records to be accurate. If they've decided that they should update it, that's their prerogative.
The way a transgendered person's recorded sex on his birth certificate makes him feel must take a back seat if altering it would significantly disrupt how birth certificates are used in official business.
So, do you have evidence of birth certificate updates significantly disrupting how those certificates are used in official business? Since so many states and countries allow them to be updated, it seems like the update doesn't negatively interfere with anything.
It doesn't mean that the procedures in one state are (or ought to be) binding on another.
I see no evidence for your claim that a birth certificate is a record of your biological sex at birth. In fact, I see the opposite, given that so many states allow you to update it.
I hope you don't find it too controversial for me to claim that birth certificates are, as the name implies, issued to record the births of children, and that the information reported on them initially should be accurate at the time of birth! At least some states that document sex changes do so through an addendum rather than by altering the certificate itself, which I think shows that those states agree with my understanding of the function of a birth certificate. One state I picked at random (Louisiana) that issues updated birth certificates keeps the original "under seal," presumably in case it becomes necessary to establish the person's actual biological sex at birth. This would allow transgendered persons to represent themselves as having their adopted sex while providing the government with an accurate record of their births.
So, do you have evidence of birth certificate updates significantly disrupting how those certificates are used in official business? Since so many states and countries allow them to be updated, it seems like the update doesn't negatively interfere with anything.
Nope. And my point was not that it would absolutely in every case be significantly disruptive. In fact, I even said:
It may be that not all states treat "birth" certificates in quite that way, and really do use them as records of a persons' current vital information. In that case, it might make sense to allow transgender people to update their birth certificates with their new genders.
Rather, I said that if altering it would cause a significant disruption, then I think the transgendered person's feelings should take a back seat. Each state seems to regard the function and purpose of birth certificates a bit differently. I would expect the impact of allowing changes to also differ.
I never claimed it does.
For convenience, here's what you wrote:
My link shows there is clearly legal precedent, and since we're talking about a legal document, that's all that really matters.
I don't know how to interpret that statement except to mean that legal precedent definitely settles questions about legal documents. The only kind of legal precedent that has that kind of power is, well, legal precedent. There is of course a non-technical, non-legal way of using the word 'precedent' to refer to past decisions that aren't legally binding, something maybe more like a tradition. But in the context of your statement that doesn't make sense, because you are apparently talking about something legally binding.
view the rest of the comments →
[–] Rostin ago
Please reread my first comment. I argued that a birth certificate records information that is true at birth. Gender dysphoria doesn't retroactively alter biological sex at the time of birth.
It may be that not all states treat "birth" certificates in quite that way, and really do use them as records of a persons' current vital information. In that case, it might make sense to allow transgender people to update their birth certificates with their new genders.
Probably my bottom line is that a birth certificate is a state record, not property of the individual. The way a transgendered person's recorded sex on his birth certificate makes him feel must take a back seat if altering it would significantly disrupt how birth certificates are used in official business.
IANAL, but I don't think legal precedent works the way you seem to think. It doesn't mean that the procedures in one state are (or ought to be) binding on another. It means that past decisions of a court must be given appropriate weight in future ones.
[–] zoetry ago
You seem to be making a lot of assumptions.
I see no evidence for your claim that a birth certificate is a record of your biological sex at birth. In fact, I see the opposite, given that so many states allow you to update it.
And the state likes their records to be accurate. If they've decided that they should update it, that's their prerogative.
So, do you have evidence of birth certificate updates significantly disrupting how those certificates are used in official business? Since so many states and countries allow them to be updated, it seems like the update doesn't negatively interfere with anything.
I never claimed it does.
[–] Rostin 1 point -1 points 0 points (+0|-1) ago
I hope you don't find it too controversial for me to claim that birth certificates are, as the name implies, issued to record the births of children, and that the information reported on them initially should be accurate at the time of birth! At least some states that document sex changes do so through an addendum rather than by altering the certificate itself, which I think shows that those states agree with my understanding of the function of a birth certificate. One state I picked at random (Louisiana) that issues updated birth certificates keeps the original "under seal," presumably in case it becomes necessary to establish the person's actual biological sex at birth. This would allow transgendered persons to represent themselves as having their adopted sex while providing the government with an accurate record of their births.
Nope. And my point was not that it would absolutely in every case be significantly disruptive. In fact, I even said:
Rather, I said that if altering it would cause a significant disruption, then I think the transgendered person's feelings should take a back seat. Each state seems to regard the function and purpose of birth certificates a bit differently. I would expect the impact of allowing changes to also differ.
For convenience, here's what you wrote:
I don't know how to interpret that statement except to mean that legal precedent definitely settles questions about legal documents. The only kind of legal precedent that has that kind of power is, well, legal precedent. There is of course a non-technical, non-legal way of using the word 'precedent' to refer to past decisions that aren't legally binding, something maybe more like a tradition. But in the context of your statement that doesn't make sense, because you are apparently talking about something legally binding.
So, just what did you mean?