Tasmania May Nix “Gender” From Birth Certificates to Support Trans Rights

[RavenSky]

I have never ever - not even once - had a doctor check my birth certificate to verify I am a female.

So, again, why is the designation necessary on a birth certificate?

This is the point of the OP. Why is it necessary? You still have not provided a valid reason.

I was thinking for statistical purposes. If it's not on the birth certificate, it's not in the statistical database. Let's say somebody has a theory that girls are treated worse than boys in school... then that information would be handy.

Having access to hard numbers on stuff helps science. Especially if our goal is to help a marginalised and weak group in society... like the transgendered.

This might be the only valid reason I've seen so far, though I don't see scientists using birth certificates as a source of sex designation for a study of school outcomes or anything else other than birth rates.

But perhaps... most importantly... what's the harm? Why not?

Because, as has already been shown via the right wing crazies, having a sex assignment noted on a birth certificate that does not match reality leads to all sorts of discrimination and harm.

It does? I don't think so. I've yet to see anything that supports it. The right wing crazies won't stop being crazy just because we force them to jump through some hoops.

I never suggested that right wing crazies would stop being right wing crazies. I did, however, provide you with multiple examples and two sources showing that sex assignment on birth certificates are being used to harm people (just like "race" on birth certificates was used to harm people in the past)

The infamous “bathroom bills”—passed and partially repealed in North Carolina, and proposed in more than a dozen other states—were also birth-certificate based; they would make binding for life the assignment of sex performed at birth. In Whitaker v. Kenosha Unified School District, decided last year by the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, Ash Whitaker, a transgender boy, was denied permission to use the boys’ bathroom despite two letters from his physician. At oral argument, the district argued instead that it would only accept “a birth certificate that designated his sex as male.” The appeals court, holding for Ash, noted the “arbitrary nature” of reliance on birth certificates.

Gavin Grimm v. Gloucester County School Board was decided last month by the Fourth Circuit; Grimm, a transgender boy, was blocked from use of the boys’ room after parent complaints. Even when a Virginia court granted him an amended birth certificate, the school board would not budge, saying that his “biological gender” was still female. “The board’s argument,” the appeals court wrote, “rings hollow.”

Please explain why we should gender bathrooms at all? Isn't that the problem?

When I went to school in Sweden we never had gendered bathrooms. I can't recall any school I went to that did. How about that solution? Just remove the genders from the bathroom. In Scandinavian culture in general, gendered bathrooms are becoming increasingly rare. Today it's just something associated with

I don't have a problem with that, but given political attitudes in the USA I suspect that gender-neutral bathrooms will be even more difficult to accomplish that removing "sex" from a birth certificate.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/a...cates-are-being-weaponized-once-again/562361/

I recommend reading the entire Atlantic article for an eye-opening history of how birth certificates have been used as a means of discrimination against ethnic minorities and women. Current political use of birth certificates to discriminate against transgender people is just another example in a long sordid history filled with outright lies.

Shooting the messenger won't fix the problem. The problem is the discrimination. Not what's on the birth certificate.

Birth certificates are used to enact discrimination. Indeed, were created for that very purpose according to the Atlantic article

 

[DrZoidberg]

Abolishing sex designation on birth certificates (and prenatal ultrasounds) is just part of the long march towards absolute gender fluidity. Total self-identity autonomy.
Next comes the deletion of date of birth.
Age of consent is a social construct too.

Not to mention legalising pedophilia and making sex with animals compulsory.

You didn't think this through, did you?

 

[DrZoidberg]

This might be the only valid reason I've seen so far, though I don't see scientists using birth certificates as a source of sex designation for a study of school outcomes or anything else other than birth rates.

I don't care what you can think of now. If we don't collect data we are shooting ourselves in the foot, if we, sometime in the future, want to study this. As a general rule it's good to collect as much data as possible.

Right now, because of people like you, Sweden is not collecting data on the ethnicity or religion of criminals in Sweden. This is giving free ammunition to rasists to spread whatever lies they want about raping Muslims. In Denmark they do collect this data that debate is dead. Because the data shows like Muslims aren't more criminally inclined than other Danes.

I'm not afraid of the truth. If the truth is used as a weapon against groups, the way to fix it isn't to hide facts.

 

[angelo]

Methinks that apart from some religious nut jobs or ideologies like Islam. The problem of discrimination is way overblown! Most of the population of Western Democratic nations do not discriminate against anyone.

I'm not so sure. We're often not aware of how we discriminate others. And that's the problem. If you belong to the majority culture it's easy to become blind to the struggles of others.

But I think you have a point with that it's often overblown. The world is full of white knights exaggerating the problems of discrimination.

Mainstream feminists today are still complaining about patriarchal oppression. Which is increasingly starting to seem to be nothing but a bogeyman.

Militant feminists complain about been discriminated against, yet yell sexual harassment when treated equally!

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

The importance of identifying sex on a legal document like a birth certificate is because of all the other governmental sex specific programs and laws.

Exactly.

The identity politics people may want to tread very carefully here. There are all kinds of laws drawn up that speak of "men" and "women", including many that are made specifically to benefit "woman". If you cease being a "woman", you may lose out on some of these.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

It is a sign of how little true problems we face today in the world's developed nations. While much of the world is concerned with real problems of life, we have to invent "crises" to worry about.

This is a great point generally. As someone who came from a 3rd worldish country as a kid and since lived in Canada I see this every day. Its amazing the things people will get riled up over when they don't have real problems. Trust fund Harvard kids crying oppression, etc.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Denying one's sex is not the same as denying one's gender.

That isn't true of transgenders who have the wrong body. Transvestites are gays in the wrong body. Straights are straights with the correct body. Gays are good with their body and prefer bodies of similiar type, while bisexual are good with their body and whatever else that is next to them. It seems odd how the right-wing mocks gender, but sexual trends of people branch out more than just male to female in too large a number to explain it any differently... gender is just complicated stuff.

The doctor does inform the little girl that "despite being a girl, you are nevertheless in fact a male, not a female." See, the girl can deny the assumed gender the doctor was thinking, but she cannot realistically deny that her sex is male. It doesn't matter what gender you are, if you're clearly a male, that can be clearly established in the vast majority of cases.

Dangling Bits? Y/N

 

[fast]

Denying one's sex is not the same as denying one's gender.

That isn't true of transgenders who have the wrong body. Transvestites are gays in the wrong body. Straights are straights with the correct body. Gays are good with their body and prefer bodies of similiar type, while bisexual are good with their body and whatever else that is next to them. It seems odd how the right-wing mocks gender, but sexual trends of people branch out more than just male to female in too large a number to explain it any differently... gender is just complicated stuff.

The doctor does inform the little girl that "despite being a girl, you are nevertheless in fact a male, not a female." See, the girl can deny the assumed gender the doctor was thinking, but she cannot realistically deny that her sex is male. It doesn't matter what gender you are, if you're clearly a male, that can be clearly established in the vast majority of cases.

Dangling Bits? Y/N

There is at least plausible deniability with one that is not nearly as plausible with the other.

If a baby is born with easily identifiable sex organs and later makes a denial, then the nature of that denial is different than if it was a denial of a different nature. For instance, if a dick carrying, ball swinging, mustache toting brute denies that she's a man (as she speaks of feeling like a woman inside), then that's a ballgame of different sorts than if she was to deny she's a male. For the former, there doesn't seem to be a readily reliable way of checking, but if she was to deny the latter, a simple lift of her skirt should quite quick-like tell the tale.

You can be (apparently) a woman in a males body, but getting butt hurt over being a male when you'd rather be a female since you feel like you're a woman in the wrong body is unfortunate, but look at what's being asked of us. We're being told that males are not necessarily boys and that females are not necessarily girls. Fine, but if you think you're a girl, don't forget what you're preaching.

You can't have it both ways. Either you're a male and actually a man despite what you think, or you're a male and a woman. If you are transgender and feel like a woman, fine, but don't go off telling us you're female. If you were, you wouldn't seek out surgery.

What's fuzzy is whether purported transgenders are truly the gender they ascribe, but what's a lot more concrete is the actual sex the person is.

Dangling bits...yes btw

 

[angelo]

I feel sorry for the future genealogists trying to trace their descendants!

 

[RavenSky]

This might be the only valid reason I've seen so far, though I don't see scientists using birth certificates as a source of sex designation for a study of school outcomes or anything else other than birth rates.

I don't care what you can think of now. If we don't collect data we are shooting ourselves in the foot, if we, sometime in the future, want to study this. As a general rule it's good to collect as much data as possible.

Right now, because of people like you, Sweden is not collecting data on the ethnicity or religion of criminals in Sweden. This is giving free ammunition to rasists to spread whatever lies they want about raping Muslims. In Denmark they do collect this data that debate is dead. Because the data shows like Muslims aren't more criminally inclined than other Danes.

I'm not afraid of the truth. If the truth is used as a weapon against groups, the way to fix it isn't to hide facts.

Because of people like me? Gee, that's funny because I know I stated - in this very thread - that I was undecided on this topic.

And as for your claim that "people like me" have allegedly caused all sorts of problems in Sweden because Sweden does not collect data on the ethnicity or religion of criminals:

First of all, this is an entirely different issue from whether a birth certificate indicates M or F for sex.

Second, according to this article, it was the "right-center" branch of Swedish politics that got rid of it:

There was once a time when Sweden regularly recorded such data on the national origin of those involved in crime, explains Stockholm University criminology professor emeritus Henrik Tham, who specializes in Swedish criminal policy and its history.

"In the 1980s in official statistics there were two tables on people who had been prosecuted, and one of them covered foreign citizens registered in Sweden under the category 'Living in Sweden'. There was a separate part about those not registered in Sweden: everything from students to Danes and Norwegians who came over and sometimes ended up involved in fights, but didn't have residence here," Tham tells The Local.

"In 1991 when the centre-right government decided it wanted to get rid of Statistics Sweden (SCB) – which was seen as an expression of social democracy – they moved the responsibility for statistics to different bodies, which meant crime statistics were moved to the National Council on Crime Prevention (Brå). At that point the stats we spoke about earlier disappeared."

https://www.thelocal.se/20180508/why-sweden-doesnt-keep-stats-on-ethnic-background-and-crime

While this aspect (and indeed the entire article) might be a good discussion topic, as I noted in the first place, it has nothing to do with Tasmania's consideration of neutral birth certificates.

As near I can find, Sweden has not eliminated 'sex' as an identifier in crime statistics; but they don't consult a birth certificate for that information either.

 

[RavenSky]

I feel sorry for the future genealogists trying to trace their descendants!

That I would actually agree with (except they would be looking for ancestors not descendants).

With the popularity of gender-neutral names, trying to decide if the Tracy Smith on a birth certificate was the correct person or not could be a great deal more difficult if we don't even know if said person was assigned male or female at birth

 

[DrZoidberg]

Because of people like me? Gee, that's funny because I know I stated - in this very thread - that I was undecided on this topic.

Yes. Because you've argued a position. I'm basing this on that and what you've said in this thread. It's anathema to science and any hope of social progress IMHO

And as for your claim that "people like me" have allegedly caused all sorts of problems in Sweden because Sweden does not collect data on the ethnicity or religion of criminals:

First of all, this is an entirely different issue from whether a birth certificate indicates M or F for sex.

Second, according to this article, it was the "right-center" branch of Swedish politics that got rid of it:

There was once a time when Sweden regularly recorded such data on the national origin of those involved in crime, explains Stockholm University criminology professor emeritus Henrik Tham, who specializes in Swedish criminal policy and its history.

"In the 1980s in official statistics there were two tables on people who had been prosecuted, and one of them covered foreign citizens registered in Sweden under the category 'Living in Sweden'. There was a separate part about those not registered in Sweden: everything from students to Danes and Norwegians who came over and sometimes ended up involved in fights, but didn't have residence here," Tham tells The Local.

"In 1991 when the centre-right government decided it wanted to get rid of Statistics Sweden (SCB) – which was seen as an expression of social democracy – they moved the responsibility for statistics to different bodies, which meant crime statistics were moved to the National Council on Crime Prevention (Brå). At that point the stats we spoke about earlier disappeared."

https://www.thelocal.se/20180508/why-sweden-doesnt-keep-stats-on-ethnic-background-and-crime

Ehe... did you read the whole article? Keep reading. The end of that article defends my position nicely. Because in Sweden we routinely let ideology go before practicality. Swedish social reforms often backfire and we end up having to create convoluted narratives defending the reforms, even though they sucked all along. Swedes are great at thinking that Sweden is the world's best country, when it's not. Sweden has among the highest mortality rates among it's drug users for example, and atrocious stats for our rehabs. While at the same time, Swedish politicians are still trying to export the "Swedish model" because it's such a great success. Another one of these are the criminalisation of sex buyers. Only made life worse for prostitutes. But the politicians don't care. They just hail this policy as a success. Almost every year we get a new and redundant law to protect women from violence. These laws only create a bizarre quilt of confusing and vague laws that add nothing that doesn't already exist.

Sweden used to be ruled by science and sensible policies. But it's increasingly become an ideological echo-chamber, where populism and emotional argumentation rules the day. It's one of the reason I moved from Sweden. It's become a lunatic asylum.

While this aspect (and indeed the entire article) might be a good discussion topic, as I noted in the first place, it has nothing to do with Tasmania's consideration of neutral birth certificates.

It's exactly the same thing. It's idiotic populism, emotional argumentation with questionable results. It's not going to help transexuals. Why would it? The arguments for that are incredibly flimsy. While knowing people's gender is incredibly valuable information for science.

As near I can find, Sweden has not eliminated 'sex' as an identifier in crime statistics; but they don't consult a birth certificate for that information either.

Every Swede has a personal identification number. If somebody has committed a crime this is on the public record and freely available. The perpetrators personal identification number is attached to the criminal record. The ninth digit of the personal identification number is gender. An even number, is a woman. An odd number is a man. So it's in there. While not explicitly, is easily worked out.

 

[fast]

I feel sorry for the future genealogists trying to trace their descendants!

That I would actually agree with (except they would be looking for ancestors not descendants).

With the popularity of gender-neutral names, trying to decide if the Tracy Smith on a birth certificate was the correct person or not could be a great deal more difficult if we don't even know if said person was assigned male or female at birth

That word "assigned" again. If someone assigns seats, there's this sense I'm getting that I'm being told what seat to sit in.

Being born, I am what I am regardless of what may have in mind to assign me as having. For instance, if I'm a typical healthy baby with a penis with no obvious peculiarities that deviate from the norm, what I am is not a function of being assigned. It would be more akin to REPORTING or documenting the facts, not a function making an assessment that could potentially be in error and not consistent with the facts.

Only questionable births where the facts aren't transparent would an assignment be called for. Generally, sex is obvious. It's gender that's purportedly not quite so obvious since gender determination is less identifiable at birth even for those with typical sex organs.

 

[RavenSky]

It's exactly the same thing. It's idiotic populism, emotional argumentation with questionable results. It's not going to help transexuals. Why would it? The arguments for that are incredibly flimsy. While knowing people's gender is incredibly valuable information for science.

"Knowing people's gender" for this "incredibly valuable information for science" or law enforcement or any other statistical study is not going to be found via a birth certificate.

When someone is arrested or a victim of crime or participates in any kind of a study, they are not required to produce their birth certificate as evidence of their sex.

MAYBE you could argue that meta-studies are done from sources (such as school enrollment data) that do record M/F sex from a birth certificate, but I would then argue that the birth certificate is a very poor source for that information (unless someone intends to use it in the very negative ways I have already referenced with factual reports).

If I enroll at university, maybe it would be good for statistical analysis to know if I am male or female. But guess what? They will have me check a box on the enrollment form myself. They will not ask me for a birth certificate to confirm what I have said.

Are you suggesting they should? What if I have already transitioned but I live in one of those states that refuse to correct the information? What if I were one of those people born intersex? Does whatever snap judgement the delivering doctor or midwife makes at my birth dictate what I actually am for the rest of my life and for every mythical scientific study you are going on about? In fact, wouldn't having the WRONG information on a birth certificate be worse for this cause of science you are so outraged about?

 

[RavenSky]

Yes. Because you've argued a position. I'm basing this on that and what you've said in this thread.

Well sir, I suggest you should never attend formal debates, then. People take the opposite approach in order to better understand a topic all the time.

That said, the absolute lack of valid reasons presented here to have an assignment of sex on birth certificates, coupled with the very real cases of harm to people because of it and the racist/misogynistic history of birth certificates in the U.S. (which I didn't know about before this thread) is providing little in favor of the position of "people like you"

 

[angelo]

I just had a look at my Italian birth certificate. All it's got on it is date of birth, my name, names of mother and father and office of registration in my birth town. Nowhere does it state whether I 'm male or female.

I'm just assumed to be a male because of my name being Angelo and not Angela.

 

[DrZoidberg]

It's exactly the same thing. It's idiotic populism, emotional argumentation with questionable results. It's not going to help transexuals. Why would it? The arguments for that are incredibly flimsy. While knowing people's gender is incredibly valuable information for science.

"Knowing people's gender" for this "incredibly valuable information for science" or law enforcement or any other statistical study is not going to be found via a birth certificate.

When someone is arrested or a victim of crime or participates in any kind of a study, they are not required to produce their birth certificate as evidence of their sex.

MAYBE you could argue that meta-studies are done from sources (such as school enrollment data) that do record M/F sex from a birth certificate, but I would then argue that the birth certificate is a very poor source for that information (unless someone intends to use it in the very negative ways I have already referenced with factual reports).

If I enroll at university, maybe it would be good for statistical analysis to know if I am male or female. But guess what? They will have me check a box on the enrollment form myself. They will not ask me for a birth certificate to confirm what I have said.

Are you suggesting they should? What if I have already transitioned but I live in one of those states that refuse to correct the information? What if I were one of those people born intersex? Does whatever snap judgement the delivering doctor or midwife makes at my birth dictate what I actually am for the rest of my life and for every mythical scientific study you are going on about? In fact, wouldn't having the WRONG information on a birth certificate be worse for this cause of science you are so outraged about?

If it's not on the birth certificate... how is it going to find it's way into databases? The birth certificate is just a summary of all the information gathered at time of birth. It's the same information that is entered into the database. That's what it means.

We're constantly having discussions about gender and if women are opressed and whatnot. Without collecting that information, it would be a dead debate. There's nothing mythical about those studies. You're so absurdly off base here. It's bizarre.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Yes. Because you've argued a position. I'm basing this on that and what you've said in this thread.

Well sir, I suggest you should never attend formal debates, then. People take the opposite approach in order to better understand a topic all the time.

That said, the absolute lack of valid reasons presented here to have an assignment of sex on birth certificates, coupled with the very real cases of harm to people because of it and the racist/misogynistic history of birth certificates in the U.S. (which I didn't know about before this thread) is providing little in favor of the position of "people like you"

The problem of racism is the racism. Your solution to end oppression of transexuals is like painting all blacks with whiteface to end racism. Trying to limit information is hardly a march towards progressiveness.

- - - Updated - - -

I just had a look at my Italian birth certificate. All it's got on it is date of birth, my name, names of mother and father and office of registration in my birth town. Nowhere does it state whether I 'm male or female.

I'm just assumed to be a male because of my name being Angelo and not Angela.

Only men do military service. How did the Italian army know if they were to call you to service?

 

[angelo]

Perhaps because on any birth roll I'd be assumed a male because of my name. The military wouldn't call me up if my name was Maria, or Angela. Throughout schooling and or sports records they could see my gender, even in those days.

 

[skepticalbip]

Perhaps because on any birth roll I'd be assumed a male because of my name. The military wouldn't call me up if my name was Maria, or Angela. Throughout schooling and or sports records they could see my gender, even in those days.

Now you have done it. The next demand from those so worked up over sex identification on birth certificates will be a demand that all names that indicate gender to be outlawed.