LGBTQI - The NYT says genderqueers are Real!

[protar]

I'd just like to pipe up and agree with Terra. I don't like it when you guys fight :crying: . We're all in this together right?

[Robin Of House Hill]

I'm not meaning to kick a hornet's nest or anything. I'm just trying to understand your position on this. Earlier in the thread, you commented on sex being something that could only be determined by science, specifically chromosomes (though, I think there are at least four other factors that are used to determine sex, but that's another topic). How would this work when it comes to things like ID, health insurance, and such? Let's say Jane was assigned male at birth. She has never had genetic testing but she has reason to believe she is XY. Despite XY, she is absolutely a woman. Is your position that she can not claim to also be female?

I'll try this again. I am not suggesting that chromosomes are the sole determinant of sex, only that those who oppose trans people are going to, and have already begun to use that as the determinant in several jurisdictions, when crafting legislation to keep us out of restrooms. If that legislation becomes law, it will set a legal precedent that goes beyond bathrooms. It will deny trans women access to women's shelters. It will make incarceration of trans women in men's prisons, unavoidable, and more.

That's why these esoteric theories of sex, drive me up a wall. Our adversaries will line up all the scientific fundamentalists and Fox News "experts", who are adamant regarding the definition of sex, and all the theories, hypotheses opinions, thoughts and suppositions will not get them to budge. And if the issue goes to court, where is a judge going to find the preponderance of evidence?

As for the other stuff, emberling and I irritate each other, so I'm avoiding that part of the discussion.

You asked a valid question. I hope I've clarified my view.

[emberling]

according to my dictionary - applying some interpretation because the dictionary isn't up with quote the distinction between gender and sex unquote - the word female is 1) a noun used for a creature of the female sex; 2) an adjective used for a creature of the female sex; 3) an adjective used for a person of the woman gender. the third specifically lists 'feminine' as a synonym, which exhibits some of the folly of going by rigid dictionary definitions since female-referring-to-gender and feminine generally aren't interchangeable

as it is generally rude to refer to persons as creatures, it can be generally presumed that non-medical types applying the word female towards persons are using the third definition and therefore that in common usage 'female' is primarily a term of gender

I'll try this again. I am not suggesting that chromosomes are the sole determinant of sex, only that those who oppose trans people are going to, and have already begun to use that as the determinant in several jurisdictions, when crafting legislation to keep us out of restrooms. If that legislation becomes law, it will set a legal precedent that goes beyond bathrooms. It will deny trans women access to women's shelters. It will make incarceration of trans women in men's prisons, unavoidable, and more.

we are in complete agreement on this

That's why these esoteric theories of sex, drive me up a wall. Our adversaries will line up all the scientific fundamentalists and Fox News "experts", who are adamant regarding the definition of sex, and all the theories, hypotheses opinions, thoughts and suppositions will not get them to budge. And if the issue goes to court, where is a judge going to find the preponderance of evidence?

what is confusing me here is that no esoteric theories of sex were mentioned in the proposal you objected to? it left the door wide open for any mundane or esoteric theory other than specifically the cherry-picked single issue ones most commonly weaponized by transphobes; even a definition based on gamete-only, which is potentially just as bad, wasn't against the proposed rule because despite being the single-issue definition with the most science cred, transphobes rarely seem to use it probably because of its wide implications re: cancer survivors etc.

[karaddin]

"The brain has a sex, lets use that" is not esoteric. The science behind it might not be widely understood at the moment, but the base concept is pretty fucking simple.

As for the root of the conflict between two people I care very much for, one seems to have a great deal of internalised transphobia which most certainly isn't their fault and it makes me very upset on their behalf, however it causes them to continually draw the line for what qualifies as female at a point that at times even she can't meet and consistently invalidates the identity of the other member, then claims that other members assertion of their own identity invalidates her own. Because apparently the existence of something outside the binary invalidates the binary?

I am a woman, and I am female, nothing em says about her identity changes these two basic facts.

[Dr. Pepper]

I'll try this again. I am not suggesting that chromosomes are the sole determinant of sex, only that those who oppose trans people are going to, and have already begun to use that as the determinant in several jurisdictions, when crafting legislation to keep us out of restrooms. If that legislation becomes law, it will set a legal precedent that goes beyond bathrooms. It will deny trans women access to women's shelters. It will make incarceration of trans women in men's prisons, unavoidable, and more.

That's why these esoteric theories of sex, drive me up a wall. Our adversaries will line up all the scientific fundamentalists and Fox News "experts", who are adamant regarding the definition of sex, and all the theories, hypotheses opinions, thoughts and suppositions will not get them to budge. And if the issue goes to court, where is a judge going to find the preponderance of evidence?

As for the other stuff, emberling and I irritate each other, so I'm avoiding that part of the discussion.

You asked a valid question. I hope I've clarified my view.

The adversaries already line up their own version of experts. Despite this, all but five states allow transpeople to correct the sex listed on their birth certificate. Certainly more progress is needed, but I can't imagine advocating a step backwards.

Going back to hypothetical Jane, currently she lives in a state that will correct her birth certificate, thus allowing her to also correct her ID. I feel this affords Jane a certain level of protection that she wouldn't otherwise have. She can whip out her ID if someone questions her right to be in a women's bathroom, prison, shelter or any other women's space. Sure, in a perfect world Jane wouldn't have to prove anything. But choosing to take a step back and advocating for Jane to only claim the sex that matches her chromosomes (or some other biological criteria) because of the existence of adversaries might make Jane's life more difficult and dangerous.

Equal marriage adversaries have had a lot of 'experts' weigh in. They aren't winning that race. This forward movement in the marriage equality fight couldn't have happened if gays and their allies decided to stop living as who they are in order to avoid the 'expert' opinion from the wrong side. Plus, the correct side has plenty of their own experts, and usually more and better. Shouldn't we be making sure that all of the trans adversary experts are properly countered by an expert team of scientists, doctors, lawyers, etc rather than asking the Janes to refrain from acknowledging that they are female?

On another note, I've only just started posting in this thread but I've been reading it for a long time. While it's upsetting to see you and emberling express irritation with one another, I'm really thankful you are both contributing. Having two people on opposite ends of the spectrum in this discussion challenges me in important ways and I can only imagine that others feel similarly. I think the LGBTQIA rights movement is made better with this sort of diversity.

[Robin Of House Hill]

Well, I'm glad emberling and I agree on one small thing. I'm just not up to discussing this subject, right now. Today has been a day from hell.

[Galactus]

I'm always felt incredibly wary about changing birth certificates, simply becuase it messes up the records. If you want to change your name it should be changed in the tax office, not on your birth registry. (you were after all born with that name, retroactively changing it feels incredibly wrong)

That said, there's very little reasons for anyone else to look at your birth certificate anyhow, unless they're trying to prove that you were born at a specific point for some reason, or is doing historical demographics. (and in the former case it should be relatively simple to show the decision that accepted the name-change)

I don't really see why gender should be any different *shrugs*.

[Robin Of House Hill]

Today, too many forms of identification require a birth certificate in order to obtain them. Because they require an appropriate gender marker for the new ID, a new birth certificate is essential.

[brook]

Firstly birth certificate is used as ID all the fucking time.

Secondly when mistakes are made they should be corrected, That includes when the wrong gender is recorded. Peoples right to have accurate info about them on official documents and their right to privacy is far more inportant than 'the records'

[karaddin]

What Brook said. I wasn't ever a male, they just fucked up and identified me as one. They don't need to record the fact they fucked up nad got the record wrong.

[Dr. Pepper]

Birth certificates are corrected all the time. Names misspelled, time of birth wrong, location wrong, parent information wrong. They are changed to reflect adoption. I don't know why correcting the sex would be any different.

And yeah, birth certificates are certainly needed more often than what's being implied. I've needed it to get all sorts of ID, have needed it for certain jobs or applications, pretty sure birth certificates are required for marriage licenses in many states.

Correcting information on the birth certificate isn't the same as a standard name change with the tax office.

[Galactus]

Birth certificates are corrected all the time. Names misspelled, time of birth wrong, location wrong, parent information wrong. They are changed to reflect adoption. I don't know why correcting the sex would be any different.

I don't think that's true here, the birth certificate records the facts as known at the time of birth. Any changes would be applies to different records.

I've never had to use my birth certificate ever. (either you use your previous form of idea, or the tax office's proof of personhood) It might be neccessary if you want to prove relationships of som sort (IE: "this person is my brother") but that's the only time I can think of where it might even come up outside of a historian needing it.

What Brook said. I wasn't ever a male, they just fucked up and identified me as one. They don't need to record the fact they fucked up nad got the record wrong.

Of course they have to. How else are you going to know they did wrong?

[karaddin]

You don't need to know?

Maybe you should stop insisting on how other countries should run their system when it's clear it's completely different in Sweden. Here your Birth Certificate is your single most important form of ID. Anything you want to get, you need to show it. The sex recorded on it is the sex you are legally. It's not a historical document, its an identity document. Having incorrect information on it just because it was done wrong is irrelevant.

[Galactus]

You don't need to know?

Of course it's needed. (I don't need to know unless I'm specifically researching you for some reason, and until a pretty decent chunk of time after your death they would be sealed anyway) just like any other administrative action. (and to show continuity between the pre- and post- transition person, since otherwise you wouldn't be able to tie eg. transactions done under your earlier name to the post-transition one*)

* Not quite true since you could track down the name change document itself.

Not to mention that not keeping these types of records de-facto eliminates transgendered persons from the historical record. Which makes coming up with demographic data (rates of violence and suicide, for instance) trickier.

[Dr. Pepper]

I don't think that's true here, the birth certificate records the facts as known at the time of birth. Any changes would be applies to different records.

I've never had to use my birth certificate ever. (either you use your previous form of idea, or the tax office's proof of personhood) It might be neccessary if you want to prove relationships of som sort (IE: "this person is my brother") but that's the only time I can think of where it might even come up outside of a historian needing it.

Of course they have to. How else are you going to know they did wrong?

I don't know where 'here' is for you, but surely you can appreciate that different countries might have different regulations on this, right? In the states, birth certificates are changed all the time because the known facts at birth were incorrect, recorded wrong, or just not recorded, or there is adoption. As a single example, the hospital staff spelled my niece's name wrong when they submitted her birth certificate so my sister had to change it.

I can only attest to how ID is dealt with where I've had to obtain ID. I absolutely needed my birth certificate the first time I acquired an ID. I've needed it again for other forms of ID, like a passport. Children will be required to show birth certificate all throughout school - to start kindergarten, to join a little league team, to play a school sport.

I don't know why it's relevant for a historian to know a specific person previously had incorrect information on their birth certificate. Is it important for the future to know a tired nurse spelled the name wrong when they submitted the paperwork?

[karaddin]

Perhaps as a historian you could recognise that I prioritise my life over the historical record, and other fields of study are forced to do the same with the people they are dealing with via ethics policies. Having my primary ID out me varies from embarassing, to annoying to outright endangering me, fuck your historical record.

[Galactus]

Perhaps as a historian you could recognise that I prioritise my life over the historical record, and other fields of study are forced to do the same with the people they are dealing with via ethics policies. Having my primary ID out me varies from embarassing, to annoying to outright endangering me, fuck your historical record.

It's not just a matter of the historical record, but also other forms of policy. In order to make good policy regarding a demographic group you need data on that group, and government data is one of the best ways of gathering said information.

[brook]

A birth certificate is a pretty lousy way of gathering data on trans people? I'm not even sure how you imagine that working tbh.

At any rate all the countries/states/regions that do allow people to change their birth certificates don't seem to have real problems in this regard.

[Dr. Pepper]

It's not just a matter of the historical record, but also other forms of policy. In order to make good policy regarding a demographic group you need data on that group, and government data is one of the best ways of gathering said information.

Not allowing people to correct their demographic information seems like a pretty terrible way to collect data for a group.

[Robin Of House Hill]

It's not just a matter of the historical record, but also other forms of policy. In order to make good policy regarding a demographic group you need data on that group, and government data is one of the best ways of gathering said information.

I'm a human being, not a demographic. Considering how quickly government policies can change, I'm not sure I'm thrilled at the government collecting such data.

In and of itself, a birth certificate wouldn't be important. But, since it may be needed to obtain forms of identification that are necessary, it is critical that ways to change it, exist.

When I transitioned in 1977, there were so few of us, that government agencies had no policies about our IDs. I didn't need my birth certificate to get my drivers license and social security changed. With that, i could find employment and housing without too much difficulty. It's fortunate, because in those days, the jurisdiction in which I was born, would not change birth certificates. Now, however, in order to get a current state issued photo ID so I can get on a plane, I had to petition a court for a court ordered name and gender change, which would then enable me to get my birth certificate changed.