Time to stop the bad practice of designating sex on a birth certificate. (1 Viewer)

[Sand]

No, not deliberately. I really don't see anything about a birth certificate. I can't rule out the idea that sex is determined by other means for purposes of required registration.

Even if a birth certificate is currently used, I'm not convinced that's the most sensible thing to go by.

"Selective Service bases the registration requirement on gender assigned at birth and not on gender identity or on gender reassignment. Individuals who are born male and changed their gender to female are still required to register. Individuals who are born female and changed their gender to male are not required to register."

From the SSS FAQ.

 

[rockaction]

I kind of like how the same fringes that want sex abolished on birth certificates -- a satisfactory designation to probably the largest portion of people as defined as you'll ever find -- are the same people that think that Census counting issues are a matter of life-and-death and that social programs and issuances based on sex are inherently good for females.

The radicals are going to blow even the well-meaning up.

I know there are parents of transgender people on the board, but this strikes me as exceptions swallowing the very basic and appropriate rules.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I kind of like how the same fringes that want sex abolished on birth certificates -- a satisfactory designation to probably the largest portion of people as defined as you'll ever find -- are the same people that think that Census counting issues are a matter of life-and-death and that social programs and issuances based on sex are inherently good for females.

The radicals are going to blow even the well-meaning up.

I know there are parents of transgender people on the board, but this strikes me as exceptions swallowing the very basic and appropriate rules.

On the census issue, I just want the constitution to be followed. I have no opinion on whether the constitution should be amended to count only citizens instead of persons, but I do have an opinion on whether counting only citizens should require an amendment.

 

[rockaction]

On the census issue, I just want the constitution to be followed. I have no opinion on whether the constitution should be amended to count only citizens instead of persons, but I do have an opinion on whether counting only citizens should require an amendment.

I agree about the census. I want the Constitution followed, too. But doesn't the census count have a lot to do with statistical information used for social programs and modelling? Would we be so willing to forego the sex designation if it meant targeted funds for women would dry up? That's really the irony I'm pointing out. 

But yeah, a census count is specifically provided for in the Constitution and should be adhered to. I'm not making a point about any of the back-and-forth that's gone on the last four years about citizens/non-citizens, only to say that one side is predictably a census stickler and the other anti-government side is hardly that. My point was sort of that one can presume, all of the sudden when it comes to birth certificates and sex designation, those positions neatly (and conveniently) do a big switcheroo.

 

[rockaction]

Really, I've actually been one that constantly posted and started threads about the importance of the distinction between "sex" and "gender" for this very reason. And gotten a lot of flak for it, too. But this is in keeping with proper thinking and Wittgenstein-esque definitional problems and solutions. I was heartened to learn that President Obama, whose federal government removed the only "gender" designation in on one of its forms, thought similarly. Being the deep and clear thinker he is, Obama specifically separated the two, largely because of these thorny issues.

In addition to this, I think Sand is right. For the largest of populations, sex designation is probably the most binary thing we have in our capability to categorize, and it's done from the time of birth.

Exceptions and Jeffrey Eugenides' Middlesex? Yes, it happens. And more frequently than most think but not frequently enough to craft policy around.

 

[psychobillies]

I’ll let you know when Peter gets incarcerated.

I hope that you don't think that my question was in any way personal.   I was genuinely asking how it works now.   The birth certificate question made me think about it. 

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

I hope that you don't think that my question was in any way personal.   I was genuinely asking how it works now.   The birth certificate question made me think about it. 

Nope, was just a dumb joke on my part.  I didn’t know anything about trans stuff until my kid came out, then I learned.  I still have no idea about trans people in prison so I figure I’ll learn that when Peter gets caught robbing a bank or something.

 

[Steve Tasker]

In addition to this, I think Sand is right. For the largest of populations, sex designation is probably the most binary thing we have in our capability to categorize, and it's done from the time of birth.

Why must people be categorized in such a way at all?  Fundamentally, why does it matter whether someone's sex is on their birth certificate or not?  

 

[rockaction]

Why must people be categorized in such a way at all?  Fundamentally, why does it matter whether someone's sex is on their birth certificate or not?  

FBI, SSS, IRS, INS, CIA, AFDC, any myriad number of social programs, you name it. We live in a highly urbane, complex world. Identification purposes are a big concern with the state as large as it is and with so many social engineering programs and with so much government intrusion into our daily lives. You want to get rid of the intrusion? I'll talk. I doubt most of the supporters of this would. You want to gut a very basic information-gathering tool of most of these? Not before we talk about their role and function.

This really is pie-in-sky thinking that the new new left is well-known for. 

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

This really is pie-in-sky thinking that the new new left is well-known for. 

There seems to be a clear pattern when it comes to issues of gender orientation and sexual orientation:

1) Some thoughtful people on the left suggest changes.

2) The majority of people view these proposed change as “pie-in-the-sky” thinking.

3) As more people on the left learn about the issue it becomes a mainstream position for left-leaning people.

4) Eventually there’s a tipping point where courts or legislatures in some states start making the change.

5) That accelerates the pace of change in other states.

6) Eventually the “pie in the sky” position offered in the beginning gets adopted nationwide.

7) People get used to the change and those that want to return to the way things were are considered “fringe.”

My expectation is that at least one state will stop putting gender/sex on birth certificates in the next ten years.  And all states will do it in my lifetime.

 

[Steve Tasker]

FBI, SSS, IRS, INS, CIA, AFDC, any myriad number of social programs, you name it. We live in a highly urbane, complex world. Identification purposes are a big concern with the state as large as it is and with so many social engineering programs and with so much government intrusion into our daily lives. You want to get rid of the intrusion? I'll talk. I doubt most of the supporters of this would. You want to gut a very basic information-gathering tool of most of these? Not before we talk about their role and function.

This really is pie-in-sky thinking that the new new left is well-known for. 

Honestly, I'm about as against government intrusion as anyone.  I'm not even really concerned about that in this case, though.

I just don't understand the reasoning as to why this needs to be dictated on someone's birth certificate.  I'm a CPA in tax practice - why in the hell would the IRS need to know someone's sex on a birth certificate?  I could see, maybe, the argument before Windsor allowed same-sex married couples to file jointly, but that horse is out the barn and isn't going back in.

As with anything else, I question "why".  The Selective Service argument I can kinda get, but with all due respect to people who run the agency, it's functionally irrelevant.  Additionally, the male-only requirement for the Selective Service was recently deemed unconstitutional by a lower court (which was overturned on appeals, but at least there's a discussion surrounding it).  Personally, for me, I don't think this is a good enough reason for the requirement.

For the other agencies, I fail to see why it is crucial for FBI, CIA, etc., to have someone's sex listed on their birth certificate, but I'm open to hearing real answers other than that we want the government to have more information on the populace.

 

[rockaction]

7) People get used to the change and those that want to return to the way things were are considered “fringe.”

I had a professor once say that once a human right was conceived it would always be granted. Somebody reminded him of Babylon, and competing rights and responsibilities. Of a universal language, no less, that came into question at the altar of expression. That indeed, full individuality could be granted, but eventually society would bear a real cost at the altar of such individuality. It was a Biblical lesson, but apt.

As far as this being fringe, I respond to the bolded as such: There is no way this is happening with either bathrooms or designation of sex. I suspect that if these take root (and the bathrooms have regardless of president) you'll see more real efforts to withdraw from society or pull apart from society, that the impulse towards such withdrawal or normalization of secession and withdrawal becomes normalized the more behavior like this is codified in society, and that you'll generally have an unspoken "loss" of which society will later mourn the effects, however silently.

Biden's recent gambit to use Title IX to include transgender bathrooms and women's sports team as part of the rubric of LGBTA will, I predict, further hasten the removal of people (self-selected, silent, and never proven) from higher university on-campus living. It's helping destroy that atmosphere by being too inclusive whereupon we were once able to exclude based on majoritarian reasons. Now we include everything to the benefit of the tiny few. The loss this entails is great. To be transphobic these days is almost a badge of honor as at least being somewhat communitarian in bent. And that's too bad. What went from an assurance of not being beaten up or scorned -- both based on real feelings -- went to intrusive notions that are now being diffused into the populace with even more unease and encumbrances than the more self-separatist radical claims of gay rights asked for. People won't stomach it for too long.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Or old bigoted people will die and be replaced with more tolerant younger people.  Like the way it happened with women’s rights and black civil rights and gay rights.  

 

[Mr.Pack]

I don't have an opinion on the birth certificate thing, but I'm ready to hitch my wagon to any argument that succeeds in getting rid of gender reveals even if it's a really stupid argument.

Honest question here. Do people gather around while said person revealing pulls down their pants? 

I don't understand?

 

[rockaction]

Or old bigoted people will die and be replaced with more tolerant younger people.  Like the way it happened with women’s rights and black civil rights and gay rights.  

Yes, like the record numbers who voted for one of those bigots. It might be that the courts and legislatures and executive orders aren't accurately reflecting the will of the people. I only expect it to get worse, actually. I'm sure younger people will be more tolerant. The question becomes how much individualism can a society stand in the end? We can't even get people to wear face masks to save lives, never mind abstractions about the .0001 percent of people seeking sex reassignments.

I posit that radical things like removing sex from official designations goes a bridge too far. 

 

[parasaurolophus]

Honest question here. Do people gather around while said person revealing pulls down their pants? 

I don't understand?

It would be like if you had a baby shower and when you cut the cake open it was blue. And people were like oh look the cake is blue omg that means its a boy!!!!

And then sally sees this and is like pfffftttt watch this. And she busts out two bottles and pours them together and bam pink smoke everywhere. And then everybody is like holy crap sally is having a girl. 

And then of course it goes up on facebook. And then karen is all like freakin sally stole my thunder at my own shower. Then she claps back at sally and is like whatevs your baby daddy didnt even want to stay with you.

And then @JAA is all like wont you all have some compassion please??? 

And there you have it. Gender reveals. 

 

[AAABatteries]

Honest question here. Do people gather around while said person revealing pulls down their pants? 

I don't understand?

 

 

[Mr.Pack]

This world has passed me by.

 

[JAA]

It would be like if you had a baby shower and when you cut the cake open it was blue. And people were like oh look the cake is blue omg that means its a boy!!!!

And then sally sees this and is like pfffftttt watch this. And she busts out two bottles and pours them together and bam pink smoke everywhere. And then everybody is like holy crap sally is having a girl. 

And then of course it goes up on facebook. And then karen is all like freakin sally stole my thunder at my own shower. Then she claps back at sally and is like whatevs your baby daddy didnt even want to stay with you.

And then @JAA is all like wont you all have some compassion please??? 

And there you have it. Gender reveals. 

I approve of this message

 

[RCon]

Yes, like the record numbers who voted for one of those bigots. It might be that the courts and legislatures and executive orders aren't accurately reflecting the will of the people. I only expect it to get worse, actually. I'm sure younger people will be more tolerant. The question becomes how much individualism can a society stand in the end? We can't even get people to wear face masks to save lives, never mind abstractions about the .0001 percent of people seeking sex reassignments.

I posit that radical things like removing sex from official designations goes a bridge too far. 

I'm having difficulty understanding why this is radical.  Does anyone ever really look at birth certificates?  I'm pretty sure that I have literally never, not once, even seen my own.  I know where my kids birth certificates are, but other than getting passports for them, they've never been used, for anything.  Why do we care so much what's on a birth certificate?  I'm not even sure what is on it.  Eye color?  Weight at birth?

Calling this radical smacks of "this is the way it's always been, so that's the way it has to be, and it has to be that way because that's how it's always been", yet no one can articulate an actual reason why something is the way it is.

 

[parasaurolophus]

I'm having difficulty understanding why this is radical.

This thread has presented the most rational case i have ever seen regarding this topic so it is hard to see it as radical. 

It is a radical idea for most making the case for this because they arent viewing it as just a logistical or impractical hurdle. 

I added the charles blow tweet to give more of that context. 

To answer @fatguyinalittlecoat 's question from early on to me, I started this thread because I admittedly thought the concept was absurd. But this thread has certainly illustrated some practical reasons for such a move. 

Regardless of whether or not this process changes, I think making it easier for people to get proper IDs should be something we figure out right away. 

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Honest question here. Do people gather around while said person revealing pulls down their pants? 

That's what I thought originally too.  Having completed my HR-mandated training, I realize now that I was mistaken.

 

[AAABatteries]

That's what I thought originally too.  Having completed my HR-mandated training, I realize now that I was mistaken.

I have a joke I want to make here but don’t want to be on TO over my Xmas break.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

I believe that many that work in the field were already asking for this well before December 2018.  This isn’t an example of satire becoming reality.  This is just someone that was ill informed or is bad at satire.

I am comfortable ruling out the second possibility. Her twitter feed has a lot of good satire.

Welp, Titania McGrath suspended by Twitter now. Guess it was just a matter of time.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Welp, Titania McGrath suspended by Twitter now. Guess it was just a matter of time.

I'm pretty sure this isn't the first time this account has been suspended.  Twitter isn't very good at handling satire.

Edit: In fairness to Twitter, this may be more of a "people are stupid" thing than a "Twitter is bad" thing.

 

[parasaurolophus]

I'm pretty sure this isn't the first time this account has been suspended.  Twitter isn't very good at handling satire.

Edit: In fairness to Twitter, this may be more of a "people are stupid" thing than a "Twitter is bad" thing.

Does the onion ever get suspended? 

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

Welp, Titania McGrath suspended by Twitter now. Guess it was just a matter of time.

I'm pretty sure this isn't the first time this account has been suspended.  Twitter isn't very good at handling satire.

Edit: In fairness to Twitter, this may be more of a "people are stupid" thing than a "Twitter is bad" thing.

That's it's happened before and they didn't learn makes it worse. Like Snopes fact checking Babylon Bee.

ETA: Is this ever off topic. Apologies - thought I was in a different thread.