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

[Elixir]

if you leave your basement long enough to go meet a girl, and a few hours into the encounter discover the girl has a penis, is your autonomy violated?

I never heard it called that, but probably, yeah.

 

[untermensche]

He says he wants to do it to lie to women about his actual age.

The government helping people lie to women is harming them.

A person's autonomy is violated with deceptions like this.

Is that like when I guy says he's a gal so he can compete in women's sport? Then breaks all the records? That's fair to real women, right?

Like when you say you are a man yet are really an overgrown boy and will never be a man.

 

[dismal]

It is surely an infringement of basic human rights to insist that someone must conform to, recognise or accept the identity preferences of another person.

Well, obviously you've been sitting out recent developments in civil rights. Bruce Jenner is a woman named Kaitlyn, Rachael Dolezal is a Black woman, and Elizabeth Warren is a Cherokee Indian, woman with penises are winning sporting events, and if you don't accept this you're a bigoted racist Nazi.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

You can't call me fat because I am trans-dimensional. I have transitioned to 2-D.

 

[dismal]

Pretty sure you've got to have "phobic" in there somewhere. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to going on internet sites and making transageophobic posts.

Okay okay - whatever will help the chronomorphobic people understand ...

I like what you've done getting double duty from the "ph" there. Though the death metal band "Morphobic Mutilation" seems to have beat you to it.

 

[dismal]

You can't call me fat because I am trans-dimensional. I have transitioned to 2-D.

I'm not surprised by this announcement. You've always appeared as a 2-D on my screen.

It's good that it's out there. At least now you can be comfortable in your own skin. Or, technically under your own skin.

 

[ruby sparks]

It is surely an infringement of basic human rights to insist that someone must conform to, recognise or accept the identity preferences of another person.

Well, obviously you've been sitting out recent developments in civil rights. Bruce Jenner is a woman named Kaitlyn, Rachael Dolezal is a Black woman, and Elizabeth Warren is a Cherokee Indian, woman with penises are winning sporting events, and if you don't accept this you're a bigoted racist Nazi.

As I said to one of my best buddies the other day, after a 4-hour shag as it happens, "Kylie, to me you're a man, you've always been a man, ever since I first saw you on tv in 'Neighbours'". He was fine with that. If only people in general could be so evolved, tolerant and respectful of the rights of others.

 

[dismal]

It is surely an infringement of basic human rights to insist that someone must conform to, recognise or accept the identity preferences of another person.

Well, obviously you've been sitting out recent developments in civil rights. Bruce Jenner is a woman named Kaitlyn, Rachael Dolezal is a Black woman, and Elizabeth Warren is a Cherokee Indian, woman with penises are winning sporting events, and if you don't accept this you're a bigoted racist Nazi.

As I said to one of my best buddies the other day, after a 4-hour shag as it happens, "Kylie, to me you're a man, you've always been a man, ever since I first saw you on tv in 'Neighbours'". He was fine with that. If only people in general could be so evolved, tolerant and respectful of the rights of others.

I'm not sure you're really getting it. You have no right to see anyone as anything. It's not about you. It's what they identify as that matters. If you see Kylie as a man and xir identifies as a ham sandwich, you're the bigot.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I'm not sure you're really getting it. You have no right to see anyone as anything. It's not about you. It's what they identify as that matters. If you see Kylie as a man and xir identifies as a ham sandwich, you're the bigot.

Yes, but if you eat Kylie, are you committing a felony for murder and cannibalism and risking life imprisonment or a minor misdemeanor for stealing someone else's sandwich and risking a quick talking-to about manners?

 

[dismal]

I'm not sure you're really getting it. You have no right to see anyone as anything. It's not about you. It's what they identify as that matters. If you see Kylie as a man and xir identifies as a ham sandwich, you're the bigot.

Yes, but if you eat Kylie, are you committing a felony for murder and cannibalism and risking life imprisonment or a minor misdemeanor for stealing someone else's sandwich and risking a quick talking-to about manners?

If someone identifies as a Ham sandwich you owe it to them to treat them exactly like you would treat a ham sandwich. Identifying as something makes it true.

 

[ruby sparks]

If someone identifies as a Ham sandwich you owe it to them to treat them exactly like you would treat a ham sandwich. Identifying as something makes it true.

Yes, the alternative that other people get to treat them as what they (the other people) say they are or see them as is much better. I think? Isn't it?

 

[dismal]

If someone identifies as a Ham sandwich you owe it to them to treat them exactly like you would treat a ham sandwich. Identifying as something makes it true.

Yes, the alternative that other people get to treat them as what they (the other people) say they are or see them as is much better.

Why would it be better if you could identify someone as a Ham Sandwich and treat them like a Ham Sandwich if they didn't identify as a Ham Sandwich?

It seems to work better if I get to identify what I identify as, you get to identify what you identify as, etc. That way everyone gets considered to be what they want to be considered as being.

 

[ruby sparks]

If someone identifies as a Ham sandwich you owe it to them to treat them exactly like you would treat a ham sandwich. Identifying as something makes it true.

Yes, the alternative that other people get to treat them as what they (the other people) say they are or see them as is much better.

Why would it be better if you could identify someone as a Ham Sandwich and treat them like a Ham Sandwich if they didn't identify as a Ham Sandwich?

It seems to work better if I get to identify what I identify as, you get to identify what you identify as, etc. That way everyone gets considered to be what they want to be considered as being.

Ok but what about me saying I'm a fresh ham sandwich that was made today when I am actually way past my sell-by date? In other words, and to finally get back closer to the OP, someone might get ill from, er, eating me.

 

[dismal]

Why would it be better if you could identify someone as a Ham Sandwich and treat them like a Ham Sandwich if they didn't identify as a Ham Sandwich?

It seems to work better if I get to identify what I identify as, you get to identify what you identify as, etc. That way everyone gets considered to be what they want to be considered as being.

Ok but what about me saying I'm a fresh ham sandwich that was made today when I am actually way past my sell-by date? In other words, and to finally get back closer to the OP, someone might get ill from, er, eating me.

It's not complicated: if someone identifies as [something] you need to treat them as if they are [something]. Or you're a racist nazi [something]-o-phobe.

Someone identifying as a Ham Sandwich does not necessarily obligate you to eat them. I have seen many ham sandwiches that I did not eat.

 

[Elixir]

Someone identifying as a Ham Sandwich does not necessarily obligate you to eat them. I have seen many ham sandwiches that I did not eat.

Not me. I eat 'em ALL.
Should the ham sandwich person bear responsibility for advising me of their edibility? I.e., shouldn't all gays be flamers?

 

[ruby sparks]

It's not complicated: if someone identifies as [something] you need to treat them as if they are [something]. Or you're a racist nazi [something]-o-phobe.

Someone identifying as a Ham Sandwich does not necessarily obligate you to eat them. I have seen many ham sandwiches that I did not eat.

Yes, but not everyone is as vigilant and discerning as you.

Ok, so let's just say you merely purchased the sandwich, because someone decided to put the wrong (but to them right) sell-by date on it. You're ok with that?

By the way, given the intentions of the guy in the OP as regards using tinder, I think this series of analogies would work better if we said it was a date sandwich. Then we could talk about dating a date sandwich with the wrong date on it.

 

[dismal]

Someone identifying as a Ham Sandwich does not necessarily obligate you to eat them. I have seen many ham sandwiches that I did not eat.

Not me. I eat 'em ALL.
Should the ham sandwich person bear responsibility for advising me of their edibility? I.e., shouldn't all gays be flamers?

Hmm, then I guess they should be careful to identify as a "Ham Sandwich That Does Not Want to Be Eaten" just to take that off the table. Unless they do want to be eaten, of course.

- - - Updated - - -

It's not complicated: if someone identifies as [something] you need to treat them as if they are [something]. Or you're a racist nazi [something]-o-phobe.

Someone identifying as a Ham Sandwich does not necessarily obligate you to eat them. I have seen many ham sandwiches that I did not eat.

Yes, but not everyone is as vigilant and discerning as you.

Ok, so let's just say you merely purchased the sandwich, because someone decided to put the wrong (but to them right) sell-by date on it. You're ok with that?

By the way, given the intentions of the guy in the OP as regards using tinder, I think this series of analogies would work better if we said it was a date sandwich. Then we could talk about dating a date sandwich with the wrong date on it.

It's not complicated: if someone identifies as [something] you need to treat them as if they are [something]. Or you're a racist nazi [something]-o-phobe.

 

[ruby sparks]

It's not complicated: if someone identifies as [something] you need to treat them as if they are [something]. Or you're a racist nazi [something]-o-phobe.

Ok now I'm confused as to your position. I had been assuming you were deploying irony. Much as I hate to stop the sandwich analogy fun and get boring, do you agree with that (above) or are you quoting someone else with whom you disagree?

And/or, do you think that the 69 year old man in the OP should be allowed to officially change his date of birth?

 

[Elixir]

It's not complicated: if someone identifies as [something] you need to treat them as if they are [something]. Or you're a racist nazi [something]-o-phobe.

Ok now I'm confused as to your position. I had been assuming you were deploying irony. Much as I hate to stop the sandwich analogy fun and get boring, do you agree with that (above) or are you quoting someone else with whom you disagree?

And/or, do you think that the 69 year old man in the OP should be allowed to officially change his date of birth?

To be serious for a moment,
[serious]I'm going with the same thing I've thought all my life: You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. Your current gender might be a matter of opinion, but past events are unlaterable facts; even if you currently identify as female, and may BE female FAPP, if you were born as a male, you used to be male. If you were born 69 years ago, that's an unalterable FACT.[/serious]

Back to the edibility and expiration dates of those who identify as ham (or other) sandwiches.

 

[Underseer]

This sounds remarkably like an attempt to mock the transgendered while simultaneously ignoring a mountain of scientific evidence.