Governor Chris Christie vetoes bill that would allow pre-transitition transgender people to change t - Polidicks

[Quote] New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) on Monday vetoed a bill that would have made it easier for transgender people to change their name and gender identification on their birth certificates. Christie claimed that the bill would result in “legal uncertainties” and that it raised “legitimate and significant concerns” over security. “Birth certificates unlock access to many of our nation and state’s critical and protected benefits such as passports, driver’s licenses, and social services, as well as other important security-dependent allowances,” Christie said in a statement announcing the veto. “Accordingly, I remain committed to the principle that efforts to significantly alter State law concerning the issuance of vital records that have the potential to create legal uncertainties should be closely scrutinized and sparingly approved.” The Birth Certificate Modernization Bill would allow state agencies to change a transgender person’s birth certificate,as long as the individual provided proof of undergoing treatment for a gender transition from a medical professional. Currently under state law, transgender individuals can only amend their birth certificates if they have undergone full gender reassignment surgery, which can be costly and creates barriers for low-income transgender individuals.[/quote] [url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/chris-christie-vetoes-transgender-bill_55c916b6e4b0f1cbf1e60c96?utm_hp_ref=gay-voices&ir=Gay%2BVoices&section=gay-voices&kvcommref=mostpopular]Source[/url]

Yes, I want this man to be president. He has a proven track record of listening to the peop--I can't even finish this sentence.

[QUOTE][B]"Instead of updating a standard state procedure to be more inclusive and reflective of our changing society, the governor has once again chosen to pander to the right by masquerading behind baseless arguments,"[/B] she said.[/QUOTE] Makes sense since its the Republican nomination. Gotta go insanely to the right.

Uh. The Male/Female on the birth certificate represents the sex, not the gender. Chris is in the right on this one. It's not supposed to be a living document. It is literally there to document how the child at its time of birth.

:snip:

he cannot not use the "i was there at 9-11" card for every issue, what security concerns does changing a word on a birth certificate pose? like its never actually going to be used for anything but to get documents, its not like you use it as some form of identification at a security checkpoint

[QUOTE=DuCT;48433629]Uh. The Male/Female on the birth certificate represents the sex, not the gender. Chris is in the right on this one. It's not supposed to be a living document. It is literally there to document how the child at its time of birth.[/QUOTE] This seems reasonable enough to me

[QUOTE=DuCT;48433629]Uh. The Male/Female on the birth certificate represents the sex, not the gender. Chris is in the right on this one. It's not supposed to be a living document. It is literally there to document how the child at its time of birth.[/QUOTE] Well the article says gender identity, and for all I know New Jersey does put both on them. Sex should not be changed though because certain diseases only affect one sex, or affect them in a different way, and changing that could throw off doctor's trying to diagnose a patient if they're unaware the patient is transgender.

oh no, not this thread again remember that shitstorm of an argument over sex/gender and birth certificates?

[QUOTE=DuCT;48433629]Uh. The Male/Female on the birth certificate represents the sex, not the gender. Chris is in the right on this one. It's not supposed to be a living document. It is literally there to document how the child at its time of birth.[/QUOTE]Seems reasonable enough. People identifying themselves as another gender is fine, but there needs to be a record. While it may not be socially relevant, this could be medically, competitively, or legally important. imo, the article is just sensationalism in an attempt to hurt his presidential standing. not that I even support it, but...

[QUOTE=DuCT;48433629]Uh. The Male/Female on the birth certificate represents the sex, not the gender. Chris is in the right on this one. It's not supposed to be a living document. It is literally there to document how the child at its time of birth.[/QUOTE] yeah why are people actually mad at this?

anyone without a grip on reality is upset, 90% aren't

[QUOTE=NotMeh;48434108]yeah why are people actually mad at this?[/QUOTE] Because FP has a rabid hatred for anybody with an (R) after their name.

[QUOTE=DuCT;48433629]Uh. The Male/Female on the birth certificate represents the sex, not the gender. Chris is in the right on this one. It's not supposed to be a living document. It is literally there to document how the child at its time of birth.[/QUOTE] That logic would make perfect sense if it wasn't for the fact its referenced all the time, and that its no buisness to others bar care provider or porn caster. From your logic, what if your child is an IS/hemaphrodite and is considered legally male at birth but then decides to live life as a woman or vice versa? Technically their sex is a woman as well as their gender, and blocking this would make it a massive headache to fix it. Its happened before, incongruity between legal gender/sex and actual gender is rather annoying and can be used as an excuse for abuse or discrimination.

[QUOTE=Monkah;48434031]Seems reasonable enough. People identifying themselves as another gender is fine, but there needs to be a record. While it may not be socially relevant, this could be medically, competitively, or legally important. imo, the article is just sensationalism in an attempt to hurt his presidential standing. not that I even support it, but...[/QUOTE] no doctor is going to use a birth certificate as a source of medical history, lol. They're notoriously inaccurate, and any transition surgeries will be well, well documented in the patient's history (along with years of hormone treatment). The problem with this concept is that in reality the only time where a trans persons identity as trans needs to be shared is medicinal. All other incidences will be a huge breach of the individuals privacy. For all legal purposes, a trans person is the sex they transition to, and it would likely cause some distress and humiliation to have to deal with the issue being brought up constantly for anything that requires their birth certificate. By amending the birth certificate they will be able to keep their medical history private. [editline]11th August 2015[/editline] there's literally no legitimate reason or social need to prevent measures like this

[QUOTE=BrickInHead;48434306]no doctor is going to use a birth certificate as a source of medical history, lol. They're notoriously inaccurate, and any transition surgeries will be well, well documented in the patient's history (along with years of hormone treatment). The problem with this concept is that in reality the only time where a trans persons identity as trans needs to be shared is medicinal. All other incidences will be a huge breach of the individuals privacy. For all legal purposes, a trans person is the sex they transition to, and it would likely cause some distress and humiliation to have to deal with the issue being brought up constantly for anything that requires their birth certificate. By amending the birth certificate they will be able to keep their medical history private. [editline]11th August 2015[/editline] there's literally no legitimate reason or social need to prevent measures like this[/QUOTE] I was on the fence about this issue until you brought up the humiliation of bringing up your birth certificate. Although I'm sure there are some statistical or medical reasons why someone would want to know your sex, in the interests of privacy, this information should not be tied to any identifying information unless necessary.

[QUOTE=Handsome Matt;48434366]Why is this needed? Who actually wants this? You were a male when you were born, just because you decide to become a female later on doesn't mean you were no longer a male when you were born. It's literally a record of when you were born, WHY IS THIS AN ISSUE.[/QUOTE] Mostly in getting passports, visas, drivers licenses , mainly government documents. It's not really an accurate means of identification though

Honestly, your birth certificate should state what you were born as, I see no reason to change it. That kinda defeats the purpose of a birth certificate if you were to change it. If only because I think you should have an accurate record of your actual birth statistics. But then Brick brought up a good point above. Considering the amount of discrimination trans people receive, it would only make sense to say "fuck it, i'm just going to completely change my legal birth gender altogether to avoid confusion". My only worry are the snowflakes (i'm so different in my identity and gender that i even told my doctor and now i'm getting the wrong medical treatment)

Isn't a birth certificate supposed to keep record of your status at birth? If so what's the point of putting subsequent changes on it exactly? If you've got a particular gender identity that's kind of irrelevant to your status at birth when it couldn't be identified and the only thing they could put on the record was your sex. This seems like a non-issue that people are making a big deal out of.

It's a [B]birth[/B] certificate, not a business card. It represents what and where you were at birth, not who you are now. You shouldn't be able to change this document, no matter what happens. Getting a new identity later down the line doesn't matter. It's important to keep track of this for medical and identification-related reasons, in the very least.

[QUOTE=Grandzeit;48434704]It's a [B]birth[/B] certificate, not a business card. It represents what and where you were at birth, not who you are now. You shouldn't be able to change this document, no matter what happens. Getting a new identity later down the line doesn't matter. It's important to keep track of this for medical and identification-related reasons, in the very least.[/QUOTE] Apparently birth certificates are updated if the person legally changes their name. Since transitioned individuals often change their legally identifying gender as well as their name, that would need to be reflected on the birth certificate too. Basically, they're not a record of who you were when you were born, but a record that you were born at all, and so it needs to reflect who you currently are.

This is a really strange issue for me, on one hand it is a record of who you were at birth. Which shouldn't change dependent on being transgender. On the other it is something you need to have to get a passport and such which could become an issue for someone who doesn't identify as that gender. Maybe have something along the lines of an update where it lists your birth sex and that you've transitioned

In Canada (and most other countries) if you legally change your name your birth certificate is updated too. If your name gets updated then that throws peoples opinions that a birth certificate is something that there to state not only that, when and where you were born but also the state (name and sex) you were born when in fact it's just for the former otherwise you couldn't change your name on your birth certificate. There is no medical, practical or bureaucratic reason not to allow sex marker change on birth certificates while there are good reasons to allow sex marker change as mentioned earlier in this thread. Most counties in Europe allow trans people to change their sex marker on birth certificates already so it's not as if it isn't a widely done practice. Edit: The title is wrong, trans people are not pre transition if they are on hormones, which is what the article/the bill is mentioning, giving pre op, post medical transition trans people the option to change their birth certificate.

[QUOTE=person11;48433987]oh no, not this thread again remember that shitstorm of an argument over sex/gender and birth certificates?[/QUOTE] Well, I mean the solution certainly isn't to stop talking about the issue.

It's a birth certificate, it should have useful information about you at the time of your birth, not afterwards. Even if you change your name, your original name should still be at your birth certificate. [QUOTE=Thy Reaper;48434811]Apparently birth certificates are updated if the person legally changes their name. Since transitioned individuals often change their legally identifying gender as well as their name, that would need to be reflected on the birth certificate too. Basically, they're not a record of who you were when you were born, but a record that you were born at all, and so it needs to reflect who you currently are.[/QUOTE] Shouldn't the document just be appended with the changes, rather than rewritten?

[QUOTE=Ragekipz;48436259]It's a birth certificate, it should have useful information about you at the time of your birth, not afterwards. Even if you change your name, your original name should still be at your birth certificate. Shouldn't the document just be appended with the changes, rather than rewritten?[/QUOTE] You can legally change your name on your birth certificate if you get a name change in every state in the US, usually just for a small fee. If you get married, you can legally request an updated birth certificate to reflect your legally-changed name, at least in Texas. I don't see why gender should be any different. If you legally change your gender, why shouldn't you be able to fix it on your birth certificate?

[QUOTE=Ragekipz;48436259]It's a birth certificate, it should have useful information about you at the time of your birth, not afterwards. Even if you change your name, your original name should still be at your birth certificate. Shouldn't the document just be appended with the changes, rather than rewritten?[/QUOTE] My mom married my stepfather when I was 6. He legally adopted me when I was 7 and had my last name changed to his. My ORIGINAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE was updated to show my stepfather as if he were my biological father, and my actual biological father's information was completely removed. People saying that birth certificates are not living records are wrong. edit: [QUOTE=Levithan;48436445]being forced to get surgery to be legally recognized as your gender is pretty fucked up[/QUOTE] also this.

being forced to get surgery to be legally recognized as your gender is pretty fucked up

[QUOTE=mechanicalocean;48436439]My mom married my stepfather when I was 6. He legally adopted me when I was 7 and had my last name changed to his. My ORIGINAL BIRTH CERTIFICATE was updated to show my stepfather as if he were my biological father, and my actual biological father's information was completely removed. People saying that birth certificates are not living records are wrong. edit: also this.[/QUOTE] Adoption is a perfect example. Also, it's not like they expunged your original birth certificate - they keep your original birth certificate with your original last name on record permanently in case it is needed. If you changed genders, they'd have a record of your old birth certificate with the other gender on it. It's the same thing as legally changing your name and requesting a change on the birth certificate - you have to go to court and have a hearing in some states, but it's almost always permissible if you've already gotten a legal name change.

There should be three columns on a birth certificate. Name: Gender: Sex: