Dutch man, 69, who 'identifies as 20 years younger' launches legal battle to change age

[untermensche]

You mean somebody who appears to be a woman tells me after a few hours they have a penis?

No my autonomy is not violated.

Then if you discover that the person is older (or younger) that initially represented, your autonomy is not violated either.

With the very important caveat that you don't want a partner under the legal limit.

My autonomy is not necessarily violated by just talking to somebody.

It is violated when people lie to me about certain things that matter.

Why can't that underage person just get the government to lie and say they are older?

If a person can lie and say they are 20 years younger they have not changed their life expectancy. They have not changed the actual age of their organs and systems. They are still more susceptible to many physical problems. They are more likely to get sick and die. They are more likely to develop arthritis soon and erectile dysfunction.

 

[dismal]

You mean somebody who appears to be a woman tells me after a few hours they have a penis?

No my autonomy is not violated.

Then if you discover that the person is older (or younger) that initially represented, your autonomy is not violated either.

With the very important caveat that you don't want a partner under the legal limit.

This raises the question of whether our identification rights only vest when we become adults. If, for example, someone who was originally born male in the year 2003 can invoke the identification power to become a female born in 1986. I have not generally heard that a 15 year old boy can’t identify as a woman so it would be strange if they could not identify as a 32 year old woman.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

You mean somebody who appears to be a woman tells me after a few hours they have a penis?

No my autonomy is not violated.

Then if you discover that the person is older (or younger) that initially represented, your autonomy is not violated either.

With the very important caveat that you don't want a partner under the legal limit.

My autonomy is not necessarily violated by just talking to somebody.

It is violated when people lie to me about certain things that matter.

So lying about age is bad but lying about genitalia is okay. Got it.

Why can't that underage person just get the government to lie and say they are older?

Good question, but I don't want to get derailed into an age of consent discussion.

If a person can lie and say they are 20 years younger they have not changed their life expectancy. They have not changed the actual age of their organs and systems. They are still more susceptible to many physical problems. They are more likely to get sick and die. They are more likely to develop arthritis soon and erectile dysfunction.

Trans men can't impregnate a woman, an trans women can't get pregnant. What if your goal is "I would like to start a family someday"?

 

[Elixir]

So lying about age is bad but lying about genitalia is okay. Got it.

Huh WUT??
Your genitalia can be surgically altered. Your date of birth cannot.

Why do I have to point out the STOOPID?

 

[ruby sparks]

You mean somebody who appears to be a woman tells me after a few hours they have a penis?

No my autonomy is not violated.

Then if you discover that the person is older (or younger) that initially represented, your autonomy is not violated either.

With the very important caveat that you don't want a partner under the legal limit.

This raises the question of whether our identification rights only vest when we become adults. If, for example, someone who was originally born male in the year 2003 can invoke the identification power to become a female born in 1986. I have not generally heard that a 15 year old boy can’t identify as a woman so it would be strange if they could not identify as a 32 year old woman.

I know you're keen to equate the two things, but I don't think it can be done. Several posters have highlighted the differences.

Unless you mean, 'identify' in the personal, informal sense, in which case sure, the 69 year old guy in the OP is free to do that. But the point is he's not content with that. He wants legal, formal, documented recognition of being 49, and that's where the differences come in.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

So lying about age is bad but lying about genitalia is okay. Got it.

Huh WUT??
Your genitalia can be surgically altered. Your date of birth cannot.

Why do I have to point out the STOOPID?

Not all trans individuals are post op. Are you perhaps pointing at yourself?

Second...

Trans men can't impregnate a woman, an trans women can't get pregnant. What if your goal is "I would like to start a family someday"?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Sure, you might prefer if you could win a track meet:

https://abcnews.go.com/US/transgend...d-competitors-critics-close/story?id=55856294

Or, a bike race:

https://cycling.today/transgender-cyclist-wins-womens-track-world-championships/

But it's pretty well established you're a bigot if you raise this sort of objection to someone identifying as something.

Interesting conflict that. On the one hand violence by men against women is given special concern, but on the other you need only "identity" as a woman to jump by that taboo.

 

[untermensche]

My autonomy is not necessarily violated by just talking to somebody.

It is violated when people lie to me about certain things that matter.

So lying about age is bad but lying about genitalia is okay. Got it.

The birth certificate does not list genitalia. It lists gender.

And adults know they are not the same thing.

But a person who knows they can't get pregnant and lies about it are as bad as that guy that lies about his age.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

My autonomy is not necessarily violated by just talking to somebody.

It is violated when people lie to me about certain things that matter.

So lying about age is bad but lying about genitalia is okay. Got it.

The birth certificate does not list genitalia. It lists gender.

Yeah. What criteria are used by the doctor to determine the gender? Flipping a coin?

 

[untermensche]

The birth certificate does not list genitalia. It lists gender.

Yeah. What criteria are used by the doctor to determine the gender? Flipping a coin?

The doctor has no idea what gender the infant will identify as.

But again, adults and doctors understand that genitalia and gender identification are not the same thing.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

The birth certificate does not list genitalia. It lists gender.

Yeah. What criteria are used by the doctor to determine the gender? Flipping a coin?

Does it list gender, or sex?
Btw, I don't know about birth certificates over there, but if it's 'male' and 'female', genitalia are a generally reliable though imperfect means of determining it.

Relevant questions are: What does the claim in birth certificates mean? What are birth certificates saying? Are they using the words "female" and "male" in the usual sense of the words, in English?

 

[ruby sparks]

The birth certificate does not list genitalia. It lists gender.

Yeah. What criteria are used by the doctor to determine the gender? Flipping a coin?

Does it list gender, or sex?
Btw, I don't know about birth certificates over there, but if it's 'male' and 'female', genitalia are a generally reliable though imperfect means of determining it.

Relevant questions are: What does the claim in birth certificates mean? What are birth certificates saying? Are they using the words "female" and "male" in the usual sense of the words, in English?

Good question. Here in the UK, apparently:

"Birth Certificate: All babies are assigned a gender on their birth certificate. Usually this is in line with the sex of their genitals, though in the instance of intersex children, doctors usually determine which sex should be assigned."


And later on the same page:

The Gender Recognition Act 2004 created a process to enable transgender people to get their UK birth certificates and legal gender changed.......... The Birth Certificate drawn in this manner is indistinguishable from any other birth certificate, and will indicate the new legal sex and name.

http://www.thefocustrust.com/info/legal-documents/birth-certificate/

Is that slightly confusing or is it just me? The page is by an organisation that in its own words "exists to provide social, educational and recreational activities for Transgender and Intersex individuals", so one would think they would be clear about it in their own minds.

 

[untermensche]

The only issue would be of consent.

A person who is a transsexual must inform any partner before there is the least bit of personal intimacy. Before there is even touching.

So that consent is made with full knowledge.

Other than that I see no need for people to know.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Does it list gender, or sex?
Btw, I don't know about birth certificates over there, but if it's 'male' and 'female', genitalia are a generally reliable though imperfect means of determining it.

Relevant questions are: What does the claim in birth certificates mean? What are birth certificates saying? Are they using the words "female" and "male" in the usual sense of the words, in English?

Good question. Here in the UK, apparently:

"Birth Certificate: All babies are assigned a gender on their birth certificate. Usually this is in line with the sex of their genitals, though in the instance of intersex children, doctors usually determine which sex should be assigned."


And later on the same page:

The Gender Recognition Act 2004 created a process to enable transgender people to get their UK birth certificates and legal gender changed.......... The Birth Certificate drawn in this manner is indistinguishable from any other birth certificate, and will indicate the new legal sex and name.

http://www.thefocustrust.com/info/legal-documents/birth-certificate/

Is that slightly confusing or is it just me? The page is by an organisation that in its own words "exists to provide social, educational and recreational activities for Transgender and Intersex individuals", so one would think they would be clear about it in their own minds.

I'm not surprised they are not clear, as usual claims made in thise sort of context are at best unclear. There is also the issue of the meaning of "gender" in British vs. American English. At least until recently, in my experience (not much, though), 'gender' was used in the UK in contexts in which 'sex' would have been used in the US.

But in any case, most people in the UK were born before 2004, so the meaning of the claims was not based on the Act they mention. Unless there was - very unlikely - a definition of 'sex' in the UK in the past, the meaning of the words was that in colloquial usage, or else in medical usage if there was any difference between them. I take it that the colloquial meaning in question is not about gametes, but that the sex of an individual (human or not) depends on the gametes they would, under some normal circumstances, produce (analogy: the meaning of 'water' is not about H2O, but whether a liquid (to make it simpler) is water depends on whether it is composed of H2O, at least primarily).

 

[dismal]

This raises the question of whether our identification rights only vest when we become adults. If, for example, someone who was originally born male in the year 2003 can invoke the identification power to become a female born in 1986. I have not generally heard that a 15 year old boy can’t identify as a woman so it would be strange if they could not identify as a 32 year old woman.

I know you're keen to equate the two things, but I don't think it can be done. Several posters have highlighted the differences.

Unless you mean, 'identify' in the personal, informal sense, in which case sure, the 69 year old guy in the OP is free to do that. But the point is he's not content with that. He wants legal, formal, documented recognition of being 49, and that's where the differences come in.

I don't see why they aren't equal unless you're a transageophobic bigot. If someone wants to identify as [something], you are required to treat them as if they are [something] (unless you are a bigot against that [something].) The government is not immune from this, as far as I can tell.

 

[untermensche]

If someone wants to identify as [something], you are required to treat them as if they are [something] (unless you are a bigot against that [something].)....

Yes, sure.

If the guy tells me he's 40 I will treat him in that way we treat people who are 40.

You know that way.

That way you treat people who are 40. Not 41. Not 39.

What is that way again?

 

[ruby sparks]

I don't see why they aren't equal unless you're a transageophobic bigot.

That's not really true, is it? You do see, don't you? It's just that you want to have an argument with untermensche.

 

[ruby sparks]

Does it list gender, or sex?
Btw, I don't know about birth certificates over there, but if it's 'male' and 'female', genitalia are a generally reliable though imperfect means of determining it.

Relevant questions are: What does the claim in birth certificates mean? What are birth certificates saying? Are they using the words "female" and "male" in the usual sense of the words, in English?

Good question. Here in the UK, apparently:

"Birth Certificate: All babies are assigned a gender on their birth certificate. Usually this is in line with the sex of their genitals, though in the instance of intersex children, doctors usually determine which sex should be assigned."


And later on the same page:

The Gender Recognition Act 2004 created a process to enable transgender people to get their UK birth certificates and legal gender changed.......... The Birth Certificate drawn in this manner is indistinguishable from any other birth certificate, and will indicate the new legal sex and name.

http://www.thefocustrust.com/info/legal-documents/birth-certificate/

Is that slightly confusing or is it just me? The page is by an organisation that in its own words "exists to provide social, educational and recreational activities for Transgender and Intersex individuals", so one would think they would be clear about it in their own minds.

I'm not surprised they are not clear, as usual claims made in thise sort of context are at best unclear. There is also the issue of the meaning of "gender" in British vs. American English. At least until recently, in my experience (not much, though), 'gender' was used in the UK in contexts in which 'sex' would have been used in the US.

But in any case, most people in the UK were born before 2004, so the meaning of the claims was not based on the Act they mention. Unless there was - very unlikely - a definition of 'sex' in the UK in the past, the meaning of the words was that in colloquial usage, or else in medical usage if there was any difference between them. I take it that the colloquial meaning in question is not about gametes, but that the sex of an individual (human or not) depends on the gametes they would, under some normal circumstances, produce (analogy: the meaning of 'water' is not about H2O, but whether a liquid (to make it simpler) is water depends on whether it is composed of H2O, at least primarily).

Yes, that definition (in my link) appears to conflate the two terms in a colloquial way, which is odd if it's a Charity dedicated to transgender issues. To me, broadly, sex is biological and gender is psychological (not that the latter isn't ultimately biological of course) and since no one can tell the psychology of a baby, I assumed birth certificates recorded sex, and called it that.

 

[dismal]

I don't see why they aren't equal unless you're a transageophobic bigot.

That's not really true, is it? You do see, don't you? It's just that you want to have an argument with untermensche.

No, I don't see it. I see bigots attempting to justify their bigotry with irrelevancies. What's relevant is: "this person identifies as X". I'm not sure what you think gives you the power to say "oh, no, you can't identify as that, you can only identify as this".

It's their individual right, not yours.

 

[untermensche]

I don't see why they aren't equal unless you're a transageophobic bigot.

That's not really true, is it? You do see, don't you? It's just that you want to have an argument with untermensche.

No, I don't see it. I see bigots attempting to justify their bigotry with irrelevancies. What's relevant is: "this person identifies as X". I'm not sure what you think gives you the power to say "oh, no, you can't identify as that, you can only identify as this".

It's their individual right, not yours.

You can't see the difference between a physical event and something that happens over time in the human mind?

If you can't see the difference you have no eyes.