KittyKat522 said "I wouldn't want to say that a transgendered person shouldn't have the choice to do so, but I just don't see the point of doing it."







Surprise! Your legal sex/gender is not what's between your legs but how you present ie secondary sex characteristics: breasts, beard, etc. This is how we decide who goes where in a sexually segregated society. If your presentation does not jive with your intentional or assigned gender, expect to be: pulled out of a crowd, stopped from entering a woman's bathroom, excluded from the red hat society, a men's hiking group, church overnight retreats. You will also not be allowed to marry, board an airplane or obtain meaningful employment.







Your birth certificate isn't a quaint keepsake they gave your mom as a souvenir. It's a legal document. Changing your birth certificate clarifies for a number of lower level bureaucrats that someone higher up the pay scale has certified that you are legally male/female and it is therefore appropriate to issue you a Driver's License, Passport, Diploma, etc.



I know what a hassle it is to get a Passport with just a name change. I've considered going to the legal expense of changing my birth certificate to reflect my legal name change rather than having to submit a zillion supplementary documentation(s). less

It's no more appropriate for cis-gender people to sit around and talk about what legal hoops transfolk have to jump through and whether or not they should be ALLOWED the enormous privilege of paying psychologists, judges, and fees for new ID... than it is for an all white group to sit around and discuss what currently legal thing should be repealed or made more difficult for nonwhites.







I feel unclean from just happening into this discussion. Ick!







I won't be going to read Roland Hulme's article which appears to be why he thinks that a Dr or midwife's first glance is more historically relevant than an individual's life experience and how they present themselves publicly.







I'll save my web hits and attention span for reading Buck Angel and Sinclair Sexsmith.







Or maybe I'll write to a bunch of former Jews about how for historical accuracy their driver's licenses should be marked with little gold stars. less

I'd have to agree with Gogojojo and Sex & Lies. My anthropological/ sociological/ gender studies educated self just can't help but seeing the inability for them to alter their birth certificate as superfluously discriminatory. I've met, befriended, and dated transfolk so it's definitely personal to me.



You are quite eloquent with your words, though, Gogojojo! less

On SexIs today, Roland Hulme wrote an article titled "Devil's Advocate: Birth Certificates and Transgender"



His postion...."But I do not agree with letting them change the listing on their birth certificate indicating the sex with which they were born."



He gives a very strong argument. Not that I'm taking sides, I'm just saying he thought it through and did a great job explaining the reasons for his position.



What do you think? Do you agree or disagree with him? less

Well the great thing about being priviliged is not being able to see how environments that seem safe to you might not be safe to others. I know that when I as a Black woman see white men discussing issues that largely effect me personally, psychologically, and/or legally *I* feel that it is hostile. Why, because the people having that discussion have more social power than me (that is their privilege.) That power is operating within a conversation regardless of whether privileged people mean to or not. And the truth is that your opinion is not something widely different from opinions that have been used to subjugate and subordinate the lives of trans* people.



No, you might have the intention of harming a trans* person but you've written an article that is in a public forum saying that you don't believe that they have a right to change the sex on their birth certificate. That has significance. Some trans* people could see this as just another personal opinion expressed by one authors. Others could feel that this is expressive of a sentiment of this community more broadly. I didn't say that you hated trans* people or that you were intentionally being mean. I said that this could be a hostile environment. It could be.



This to me isn't merely a bureaucratic decision, you have the privilege to think of it as such because you are cisgendered and the changing of documentation for sex/gender purposes for you is a theoretical discussion. It will not affect the amount to which you are harassed or policed by your sex or gender. If arrested a corrupt police officer cannot stick you in a public cell (or worse be sentenced to a prison) with the opposite gender to which you define yourself as because its on your birth certificate, and that's your *real* sex/gender and open you up to physical and mental violence.



So yes, I think that this kind of conversation that pretends as if the answer to this question is simply a matter of bureaucratic semantics is a hostile one.



Ultimately to me your answer of having other kinds of social documentation to follow trans* people is a non-solution. If we still hold up the birth certificate as some sort of primary document of identity then there will always be those who will try to go back to it as a means of disrespecting and de-legitimizing trans* identity. less

On SexIs today, Roland Hulme wrote an article titled "Devil's Advocate: Birth Certificates and Transgender"



His postion...."But I do not agree with letting them change the listing on their birth certificate indicating the sex with which they were born."



He gives a very strong argument. Not that I'm taking sides, I'm just saying he thought it through and did a great job explaining the reasons for his position.



What do you think? Do you agree or disagree with him? less

I would add that (after skimming the article) I disagree with the author's positions the birth certificate as a definitive record of a person's sex history. I would suggest reading the work of Anne Fausto-Sterling Sexing the Body to see a thorough discussion of the ambivalent process of sex categorization at birth (and its history in the United States.) The only thing that a birth certificate records is the perception of sex by parents and/or medical personnel at the time of a person's birth. That perception can be invalidated by genetic testing and/or surgery. less

She's right about a lot of this.



If you've ever been in the birthing or delivery room when a baby with "indeterminate gender" is born, you'd know. Some babies are born with what looks like a "penis" with no testes, or what looks like a clitoris (human infants have fairly large clitori when born) and no open vagina, or testes and what looks like a "regular" clitoris. The room gets quiet, the mom starts to freak out, the dad starts to ask questions and then yell. Often, the delivery doctor simply "assigns" a gender according to his whim.



Often, in these cases, unless the parents know enough about the subject, they will go along with the doctor's assignment, up onto the actual situation where the baby will be subjected to a surgical procedure, usually to "make the baby appear female." Often genetic tests are not even done.



It's a travesty when surgery is done without investigation. It used to be believed, and still is by some that the baby will "take on" any gender the parents raise the baby to be. We know this is completely false, and more effort should go into the care of intersexed and indeterminate gender babies than is at the present time.



Some doctors will be honest and say, "The baby's gender is not readily apparent at the moment." And leave the baby's genitals alone (as long as the child can urinate and stool in a healthy way) and do genetic tests and educate the parents to wait before doing anything, or even let the child determine what gender he or she feels is best later.

.

. less

On SexIs today, Roland Hulme wrote an article titled "Devil's Advocate: Birth Certificates and Transgender"



His postion...."But I do not agree with letting them change the listing on their birth certificate indicating the sex with which they were born."



He gives a very strong argument. Not that I'm taking sides, I'm just saying he thought it through and did a great job explaining the reasons for his position.



What do you think? Do you agree or disagree with him? less

I agree with you. It smacks of cis-privilege. That being said I (a ciswoman) commented because I didn't see anyone offering challenges to the author's argument and that seemed atrocious to me.



(Note: I don't know the gender history of the author (and could not find that information listed in the article, or his blog.) I assume that he is cis because he refers to trans*people as "they.")



I personally feel like trans*people would (and with good reason) stray away from entering this particular discussion space. To me it seems a hostile environment. Because I would not require, or expect my trans* friends to actually speak in this forum I thought I would offer some of my thoughts as a trans* community ally instead. (Note: I in no way claim to be speaking for trans* people.)



Ultimately I believe this about the issue:



Its really not anyone's business (now or in the future) what another person's gender history is unless they choose to disclose it (for personal and/or legal reasons.) All that maintaining at-birth sex assignment does is force that disclosure on some people. less

You are here, when you talk about surgery being done in the absence of investigation with the anticipation of the child "growing into" their assigned sex, talking about John Money's horrible experiment of the 1950s or 1960s (I believe it was).



Awful, that. less

Well the great thing about being priviliged is not being able to see how environments that seem safe to you might not be safe to others. I know that when I as a Black woman see white men discussing issues that largely effect me personally, psychologically, and/or legally *I* feel that it is hostile. Why, because the people having that discussion have more social power than me (that is their privilege.) That power is operating within a conversation regardless of whether privileged people mean to or not. And the truth is that your opinion is not something widely different from opinions that have been used to subjugate and subordinate the lives of trans* people.



No, you might have the intention of harming a trans* person but you've written an article that is in a public forum saying that you don't believe that they have a right to change the sex on their birth certificate. That has significance. Some trans* people could see this as just another personal opinion expressed by one authors. Others could feel that this is expressive of a sentiment of this community more broadly. I didn't say that you hated trans* people or that you were intentionally being mean. I said that this could be a hostile environment. It could be.



This to me isn't merely a bureaucratic decision, you have the privilege to think of it as such because you are cisgendered and the changing of documentation for sex/gender purposes for you is a theoretical discussion. It will not affect the amount to which you are harassed or policed by your sex or gender. If arrested a corrupt police officer cannot stick you in a public cell (or worse be sentenced to a prison) with the opposite gender to which you define yourself as because its on your birth certificate, and that's your *real* sex/gender and open you up to physical and mental violence.



So yes, I think that this kind of conversation that pretends as if the answer to this question is simply a matter of bureaucratic semantics is a hostile one.



Ultimately to me your answer of having other kinds of social documentation to follow trans* people is a non-solution. If we still hold up the birth certificate as some sort of primary document of identity then there will always be those who will try to go back to it as a means of disrespecting and de-legitimizing trans* identity. less

I think the most damaging aspect of this in recent years is the conflation of "sex" with "gender."



The trans community may disagree, but I continue to use the definition that was handed to me via psychology: sex speaks to biology, and gender speaks to roles and identity. "Sex" is male, female, intersex, or other (most of these aren't viable, though); "gender" is masculine, feminine, androgynous, and so forth.



On to the topic at hand: transGENDER people--those whom identify as another gender--should not be able to modify their birth certificate to reflect their wishes. TansSEX people--those identifying with, and having genitalia of, another sex--should absolutely be permitted this.



I know from a friend of a friend that the UK permits this very thing. The woman whom I met is exceptionally bright and gave one of the most interesting highly technical presentations I have ever seen. Apparently, the man that she was born was not this way at all, instead plagued with feelings of being in the wrong body. So, for her, created vagina and all, I absolutely think she is in the right to go back and retroactively alter her birth certificate. Pre-op, I wouldn't think so. less

Indeed. Very good point, this: one need only look at the recent events of the female Olympic runner Caster Semenya. "She" was, after genetic testing, found to be inter-sex, if I recall correctly. less

Saying it is an improper forum and then laying such a heavy claim on what I've said seems disingenuous to me. Luckily, EF provides me with a message center on my profile, my email should also be available, AND you can find a link to my blog. So if at any point you do want to bring discuss that claim I am available. Those please do give time for a thoughtful response.



I would also enjoy you pointing out where exactly I said your point was invalid. In my recollecting of my writing on this forum I said that 1)I disagree and 2) that the fact that you speak from a privileged position has the potential to create a hostile environment for the marginalized people that you discuss. Hostile isn't the same word as invalid.



But again, if you want to discuss this further, not in this thread. please feel free to contact me via any of the above channels. less

You never said my opinion was invalid - I just got the distinct impression you think it's inappropriate for a cisgender male to talk about transgender issues; or be given a forum to do so in the first place.



Personally I've been fascinated by the points people have raised and it's distinctly challenged my position in several key areas. If I hadn't been given a forum to do that in the first place, I would never have seen other people's perspectives and been challenged to change my own. less

Hey Alixxe,



Since no one has yet acknowledged your comment, I wanted to. I am cis and have to say I really appreciate your entering this conversation - where the majority of us so far identify ourselves with the gender we were assigned at birth. That takes courage, and I am grateful to hear your perspective because frankly it's the only one that matters because the issue effects YOU directly and not me, for example.



This is a pretty upsetting topic and I have seen my trans friends and family break down into tears, self harm, quit jobs, leave school, not seek medical attention when they desperately needed it, turn to drugs and so much more over it. I am 100% behind your statements and slowly, state by state here in the US (not sure where you're from,) it is becoming easier for trans individuals to have their legal identification documents reflect who they are. A decade ago my aunt was fired because she came to work in a dress and announced that she was transitioning from a person she never truly was into the person she IS and always has been. She fought it, and now in her state? You cannot be fired for your transition status.



We're getting there. Slowly but surely. less

On SexIs today, Roland Hulme wrote an article titled "Devil's Advocate: Birth Certificates and Transgender"



His postion...."But I do not agree with letting them change the listing on their birth certificate indicating the sex with which they were born."



He gives a very strong argument. Not that I'm taking sides, I'm just saying he thought it through and did a great job explaining the reasons for his position.



What do you think? Do you agree or disagree with him? less

Well then, let me clarify. I don't think that its inappropriate for a discussion to happen. I do think that it is important that when we speak from a position of privilege and power (as both of us are in this case, though in different ways) that we are conscious of that. It is, to me, inappropriate for cisgender/sexual people to have a discussion in a public forum with the assumption that 1)trans* people are not present or 2) that they feel comfortable speaking in that forum.



I assume that this impression comes from my comment in response to G.L. Morrison. Ze stated that it was inappropriate for cis* people to be having this conversation at all. I responded that I agreed. And I should have been more clear as to what I agreed with. So to be clear I don't think that being cis* disqualifies you or anyone from being able to discuss trans* issues to a point. I do, however, think it is a privileged/powerful position to be able to talk to this issue in a public forum in the way that you and others had at the point where I entered the discussion were. And I don't think that that privilege/power was acknowledged or dealt with and that to me is/was inappropriate. less

I was under the impression that the original birth certificate is only altered in SEALED adoption cases - where the biological parents absolutely want no contact with that child in the future. Outside of that specification, the original is kept as is and an ammended copy is then given to the person.



I'm not sure where I stand. I'm still...very...confuse d about the transgender community in general. It's extremely hard for me to wrap my brain around. less

Nope, this is not the case as mine was altered at the age of 4 after my birth parents split up and my mother married my adopted father. While I had very little contact with my birth father, I knew who he was and had relationships with his family.



So the precedence exists, but I am not sure, in the case of open adoption, why it SHOULD. less

A step-parent adoption is different though because your biological father had to either relinquish rights or be notified of the impending adoption and take no action to contest it.



Calling all the lawyers in the house!! Both of my half-sisters were adopted by their stepfathers. I'll have to ask about my sister's birth certificate. I've never seen it. (Funny enough, my dad gave up rights for his bio-daughter to her new step-father, while taking on responsibility for his step-daughter. It was confusing for awhile when I was a kid.)



But anyway...I'm not sure if it matters at all in the slightest. My brain turns into pure mush when I think about what being transgendered entails. The internal struggles, society's role, gender studies/roles...all of it comes crashing down and I don't know what's real any more.



This has been a very interesting thread to stumble on and I appreciate the nerve it took to write the article in the first place and to continue the conversation without starting a riot. I'm learning a lot, and while I don't get it or understand any of it, every little bit of information and point of view helps.



As of right now, considering what has been written down on this forum, I'm wondering if genetic testing would be the appropriate way to go about things when a child is born? What would society be like without the ability to concretely identify a person as male or female? less

Of course.



But let me ask this (Without getting my head chopped off), if sex/gender is so irrelevant then why not just not worry about what that label is on the certiciate and live life any way choose?





See I told you, I really don't get it. I want to, but I guess I need more information on how it all works. less