(We're all learning here. No worries about heads rolling, etc.)



"Why not just not worry about what that label is on the certiciate and live life any way we choose?"



I live as the gender I was assigned when I was born; I don't struggle with birth certificate history issues. I can't speak for the people who would like to change their birth certificates.



I will say that it would be nice if society at large weren't focused on sex and gender, but both concepts are, currently, very entwined in both the culture and legal systems of the USA. less

The legal thing REALLY confuses me. We live in a (theoretically) equal society, in which men and women (theoretically) have exactly the same rights - so why do we even concern ourselves with sex/gender any more? Can't we just be individuals rather than an M or F in a box? Being one gender or the other shouldn't give anybody any additional rights, according to the law, or take rights away. less

(We're all learning here. No worries about heads rolling, etc.)



"Why not just not worry about what that label is on the certiciate and live life any way we choose?"



I live as the gender I was assigned when I was born; I don't struggle with birth certificate history issues. I can't speak for the people who would like to change their birth certificates.



I will say that it would be nice if society at large weren't focused on sex and gender, but both concepts are, currently, very entwined in both the culture and legal systems of the USA. less

But wouldn't it be harmful if sex/gender were not intertwined in the legal system? I ask this because I shudder to imagine what a co-ed prison would be like. In a system where gender/sex is not considered, a woman could be assigned to a cell with a man. Granted, men are often abused by other men in such situations (and women by other women), but a woman locked away in a cell with a male felon (or immersed in a male general population under maximum security lock-down) would find herself in a disproportionately high-risk situation for being raped. less

I think this entire argument and the strife it causes from supporters and the opposition would go away if society allowed human beings to think, act and behave the way they feel according to things they enjoy doing and not what they SHOULD do based on what's between their legs. less

This comment probably deserves its own thread, but I'll start here first.



I watched a documentary at 4 AM this morning on gender identity and the gene scientists think is responsible for brain sex. Originally, gender was thought to be a construct of nurture versus nature. While both sides of the argument agreed society influenced gender roles, no one could refute those whom had been raised as one sex and were literally dying to be the other. And they began the process of determining what it was about people who were transgender and transexual different from those who were cisgender.



This documentary largely focused on cases in Australia and New Zealand, specifically one woman who had all of the physical characteristics of a female but her chromosomes were not XX, they were XY. The SRY gene is believed to be what hard wires the brain into one sex or the other. It is carried on the Y chromosome.



The condition is known as Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome. It's where the body blocks the male characteristics of development, almost as if the Y chromosome were an interloper. There are two forms, complete and incomplete.



The aforementioned woman has Complete AIS. She has a vagina and developed breasts. She has very little pubic hair or underarm hair and no uterus. Women with Complete AIS are often extremely tall and some actors/actresses and models are suspected of having the syndrome.



Incomplete AIS babies are often assigned a sex at birth through surgery. It is common practice for doctors to not discuss the issue with parents and act on their behalf based on their assessment of the child. This is done without genetic testing. The child is then raised to follow his/her gender role but often feels they do not belong in 'that' body. All they know is it doesn't feel right to them. Most patients do not discover the condition until puberty strikes and they fail to menstruate (females), or begin to develop breasts (males). Some never discover it all.



In Australia, out of the 50 documented cases where sex was surgerically assigned, only 2 were unhappy with their sex. All 50 were assigned as males at birth because it is easier to create a vagina than a working penis. No discussion of circumcision was mentioned. In the United States the doctors chose based on which of the genitalia was more fully formed. Out of those cases more than half were unhappy with their sex.



Watching this documentary really opened my eyes. Some people believe whole-heartedly that transgenderism and transsexualism are simply lifestyles - it's something someone chooses to be. Science is quickly putting it to bed and giving us concrete evidence and understanding of a very complex (and politically heated) condition.



At this time, genetic testing is not affordable or widely available in most scenarios. I believe people should be able to change their birth certificate. I am hesitant to recommend a set of guidelines to allow someone to change the document because of the enormous cost the person would incur if they had to get genetic testing or surgery or years of therapy first. It seems unfair but there still need to be a set of regulations to prevent fraud. 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

Thanks for the reply.



I realize there are current safeguards in place for such issues regarding gender and sex. I was just speaking to the hypothetical in addressing this particular statement:



"I will say that it would be nice if society at large weren't focused on sex and gender, but both concepts are, currently, very entwined in both the culture and legal systems of the USA."



My question is how the legal system would work if it did not account for (i.e., focus on or intertwine itself with) gender and sex. Gender and sex are extremely important to people's identities whether we identify as male, female, or even as genderfluid. Plus, our sex and gender have an undeniable and direct bearing on how safe we are in certain situations.



What I meant was that a focus on gender and sex is not necessarily a bad thing and that perhaps we should not consider it a negative that the legal system has a focus on these issues. Such a focus on gender/sex can bring about some very positive things in life (such as the safeguards the legal system puts into place in prison populations). A focus on gender/sex does not not bring about only negative things.



How could gender/sex not be considered a legitimate and valid concern? If sex/gender is a legitimate and valid concern, how could the legal system ethically choose to disengage itself from it? less

"Gender and sex are extremely important to people's identities"



Is this statement true because we are raised in a society that focuses on our sexes and genders? (I think so) Would it be true if we didn't focus on these things like we do? (I don't know) That was the point of my statement. I wish I could know what would be different.



The prison issue you bring up is valid, though. I don't know enough about that situation to make any educated suggestions for it. less

Hi G.L. Morrison - I'm sorry you feel that way. The benefit of being allowed to express opinions in SexIs is to have those opinions challenged - and often have them changed.



There are many things I felt about very strongly about at one point, but then discovered new points of view that made me totally change my mind about them.



Education can't begin without communication and if you feel that cisgender people shouldn't even be allowed to weigh in on the subject, then you've shut off the lines of communication from the beginning and all the cisgender people who have opinions different to yours will never see things from your point of view. Instead of changing things for the better, you've just helped make sure they stay exactly the same as they are now. less

It's fascinating that when I say that the conversation is inappropriate and creepy, I'm oppressing cisgenders. Weigh in on the subject? The subject isn't how transfriendly is the sex-positive community. The subject under "discussion" is whether or not to roll back an existing law and hard-won legal precedent.



What I am so *rudely* pointing out is this is similar to arguing about the advantages of separate but equal water fountains.



I understand that some of you don't get it. It's so far removed from your lives that I'm being mean and it's just an opinion, no such thing as a stupid question, etc etc. Imagine for a moment, that it's an issue you can identify with. About misogyny. Suppose some guy makes some really sexist remarks that hit home. Is the only way to educate him to be a good girl and nice and explain again and invite him to share his opinion as if it were equal and sane. Or is a drink in the face also an educational tool.



My point is that most people involved in this discussion really still don't see how frightening and offensive, even if unintentionally, many of the arguments are. less

Hi Gogo - yes, I misattributed GL Morrison's hostility to you and for that I apologize. I was peering back through your comments to try and find something saying my position was invalid and you never said that. Again - sorry.



As for the privileged/power position - I'd really rather you pick apart my words and opinions (as many people have done, very successfully) then dictate how I'm supposed to express myself based purely on my gender/sexuality/color . less

I have always been told by the transgender people that I know that "sex" and "gender" are entirely separate concepts. According to them (and this makes sense, really, when you think about it), "sex" is biological (i.e., what's between your legs) while "gender" is entirely a psychological concept (i.e., this is how you *feel*, regardless of the genitalia you possess.) I'm not claiming to know what trans people go through, or any of the struggles they experience, so I really hope I didn't offend.



To be frank, I didn't think of a birth certificate being important for travel/passport purposes, because when I applied for my passport, well, I didn't need my birth certificate (my baptismal certificate sufficed.) So yes, I see your point there.



As I said in my original comment, I definitely don't think that transgendered people should be stopped from having the sex on their birth certificates changed. I didn't, at the time of my original comment, see why anyone would want to do that, but I've since realized that, hey, just because I personally would never have the need to do so, that doesn't mean that someone else might not want to.



So again, I'm sorry if I offended you. It was just my take on the article. less

I can certainly empathize with your feelings about this post, but I really don't agree that having a discussion about this is not "appropriate" for cis-gendered individuals. And to be perfectly honest, I find your comparison of this article/this discussion to what the Jews experienced during the Holocaust to be not only inappropriate, but disgusting. Please do not compare a biological classification on an individual's birth certificate to an entire race of people being systematically dehumanized and tortured. One is entirely purposeful; the other is not. I'm sure that the doctor who declared your biological sex at birth did not purposely assign you the wrong sex just to dehumanize you.







I think that there is a way to engage here and voice your opinion (whether contradictory or not) without making hurtful, inaccurate comparisons. 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

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 hardly consider either of those instances a "whim". Both adoption and transitioning are very deliberate and drawn out processes. They involve careful assessment and planning. Not only that, but they both greatly alter the course of the that person's life. Something that profound should be treated accordingly. 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