• B.C. Human Rights Tribunal to consider striking gender designation from birth certificates
    279 replies, posted
[QUOTE=thisispain;47814559]Native-American societies are a famous example: [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-Spirit[/url] There are also the Hijra of India: [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijra_(South_Asia)[/url] There's the Fa'afafine: [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fa%27afafine[/url] Indonesia: [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_in_Bugis_society[/url] The point isn't to say that it's common, but we have to be able to explain why these distinctions exist if we are biologically pre-disposed to a binary. Not to mention, in the Far-East many societies already accept that male and female are social distinctions and not biological. This is why they don't have as large taboo's on transgenderism as the West did.[/QUOTE] the existence of nonbinary does not necessarily disprove that a predisposition to binary exists. as far as i can tell, in all of your examples it seems that those not within the binary are still in the minority.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;47814584]I would hope that doctors are not using any piece of personal identification to make medical decisions. The amount of information they have on file is going to be more up-to-date and accurate than anything I carry on myself.[/QUOTE] Biological sex is on file in the BC Electronic Health Record system.. no matter what transgender people do the health industry will ALWAYS identify them as their biological sex.
[QUOTE=exhale77;47814579]I'm glad you can correctly visualize what the problem is and project it on to another human being. Did you really just say that? In what way does that statement move this debate forward? You can't expect anybody to look a certain way based on their ideas.[/QUOTE] If it was an Anti-Gym protest and it was a fat guy leading it i'd make the same joke. You can say you're offended but, that's not my problem.
and in most of those it seems to still acknowledge the binary, with the third gender seeming to take up the trappings of the other genders
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;47814601]the existence of nonbinary does not necessarily disprove that a predisposition to binary exists. for example, in all of your examples it seems that those not within the binary are still in the minority.[/QUOTE] Well yes, that's true, but we have to explain why we have binaries in our part of the world when other parts of the world do not. If it's biological then we need proof that there's some biological difference, which isn't very consistent with what we know about gene shift (though I know some believe the east-Asian genetic chain is separate from the western chain); otherwise we should ask ourselves how much of the predisposition should be reflected in how we set up our civic society, such as in this case a document which identifies you within the civic society.
[QUOTE=thisispain;47814614]Well yes, that's true, but we have to explain why we have binaries in our part of the world when other parts of the world do not. If it's biological then we need proof that there's some biological difference, which isn't very consistent with what we know about gene shift (though I know some believe the east-Asian genetic chain is separate from the western chain); otherwise we should ask ourselves how much of the predisposition should be reflected in how we set up our civic society, such as in this case a document which identifies you within the civic society.[/QUOTE] The fact that they're a massive minority even though multiple cultures developed separate from one another with no interaction either means that there is a binary disposition or statistically it just ended up like that.
[QUOTE=thisispain;47814559]Native-American societies are a famous example: [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-Spirit[/url] There are also the Hijra of India: [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijra_(South_Asia)[/url] There's the Fa'afafine: [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fa%27afafine[/url] Indonesia: [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_in_Bugis_society[/url] The point isn't to say that it's common, but we have to be able to explain why these distinctions exist if we are biologically pre-disposed to a binary. Not to mention, in the Far-East many societies already accept that male and female are social distinctions and not biological. This is why they don't have as large taboo's on transgenderism as the West did.[/QUOTE] Definitely interesting to read about, but I feel like the existence of a handful of non-binary tribes and communities isn't enough to overrule the overwhelming majority of human society throughout history. Not that it matters that much, it's all a matter of opinion right now as far as we're all concerned (unless there's a doctor on FP to confirm who's right or wrong), but personally I still feel that gender is as biological as sex. The Far-East's belief that male and female is interesting but not objective. Admittedly I don't know much about the Far-East but I would imagine they believe a lot of things that modern medicine doesn't quite verify.
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;47814612]and in most of those it seems to still acknowledge the binary, with the third gender seeming to take up the trappings of the other genders[/QUOTE] At the risk of sounding ridiculous, it's possible it only seems that way from our chiefly-Western standpoint. I've read documents from advocates who say that there's a distinct difference.
[QUOTE=isreal?;47814609]Biological sex is on file in the BC Electronic Health Record system.. no matter what transgender people do the health industry will ALWAYS identify them as their biological sex.[/QUOTE] Yeah, this is exactly my point. People's personal information should be easily changed by the person who owns it. The accuracy of medical information isn't an argument against it because accurate medical information already exists for all of us. (At least the ones born in hospitals)
[QUOTE=thisispain;47814626]At the risk of sounding ridiculous, it's possible it only seems that way from our chiefly-Western standpoint. I've read documents from advocates who say that there's a distinct difference.[/QUOTE] I'm almost positive you're wrong on this one. Theres almost certainly a genetic disposition, you could argue that we no longer require it or need to abide by it. But statistically it seems almost certain it's a matter of genetic disposition.
god reading this thread. It's a physical attribute like eye color or hair color or birth weight who the fuck cares if it's listed
[QUOTE=srobins;47814625]Definitely interesting to read about, but I feel like the existence of a handful of non-binary tribes and communities isn't enough to overrule the overwhelming majority of human society throughout history. Not that it matters that much, it's all a matter of opinion right now as far as we're all concerned (unless there's a doctor on FP to confirm who's right or wrong), but personally I still feel that gender is as biological as sex. The Far-East's belief that male and female is interesting but not objective. Admittedly I don't know much about the Far-East but I would imagine they believe a lot of things that modern medicine doesn't quite verify.[/QUOTE] Well look, what I said about gender being 100% socially constructed had more to do with how we define our social structures around our chromosomes than specifically biological traits. I don't think it's bad to have two genders as long as we're also open in our society for people who go beyond them (they exist and are becoming aware so people are gonna have to be open); biological things are in the realm of science and medicine which I think in our society is very much a private thing. Relating back to the birth-certificate, my argument remains that it's a social document because, at least in the United States, it's changed to reflect social things. [editline]27th May 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Richoxen;47814634]I'm almost positive you're wrong on this one. Theres almost certainly a genetic disposition, you could argue that we no longer require it or need to abide by it. But statistically it seems almost certain it's a matter of genetic disposition.[/QUOTE] Well we need proof of it, Rommel.
[QUOTE=DanRatherman;47814250]I thought the goal was equality, not eradication of the self-identifying concepts of those who differ?[/QUOTE] The goal of activists shifted from tolerance to control of individual opinion on the topics. Tolerance isn't enough anymore, there needs to be unequivocal acceptance. There's a hilarious degree of fervor to it.
[QUOTE=Nikota;47814663]The goal of activists seeking equality shifted from tolerance to absolute control of individual opinion on the topics.[/QUOTE] As everyone knows the way to accomplish absolute control of individual opinion is to send polite requests for a hearing to a judicial body.
[QUOTE=thisispain;47814672]As everyone knows the way to accomplish absolute control of individual opinion is to send polite requests for a hearing to a judicial body.[/QUOTE] I don't think the way you go about it matters. While I don't think that equal rights activists are fascistic despots, a lot of the arguments I've heard in favor of this change stem from a desire to manipulate public opinion. Which is pretty weird.
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;47814601]the existence of nonbinary does not necessarily disprove that a predisposition to binary exists. as far as i can tell, in all of your examples it seems that those not within the binary are still in the minority.[/QUOTE] They're still extreme minorities within those societies. The option being there doesn't mean that it's common.
[QUOTE=mokkan;47814144]yo thisispain if you are a chick in a mans body you still get all y linked disease, and a man in a chicks body still gets x linked disease. you think getting rid of a record of the single easiest test for these risk factors will help people?[/QUOTE] It's not like anybody gives a shit about other people's well being. It's all about thinking you made a change and feeling good about yourself in the name of progression.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;47814700]I don't think the way you go about it matters. While I don't think that equal rights activists are fascistic despots, a lot of the arguments I've heard in favor of this change stem from a desire to manipulate public opinion. Which is pretty weird.[/QUOTE] Asking for arbitration is by definition not absolute control. And I don't know about manipulate, but public opinion is important to get on your side. It's only with constant and dangerous campaigning by activists that we earned our advancements in LGBT rights. People had to literally riot in order to get the LGBT community known.
The birth certificate is the first form of identification that a person has, and in the US, helps to establish citizenship. Also, in the US, the birth certificate is considered a primary form of identification. Frankly, the whole issue with changing driver's licenses and what not [i]isn't[/i] the birth certificate, it's the laws. Rather than this bull shit with birth certificates, the group should be focusing on changing the laws that make it difficult to change your sex indicator on documents. I say this as someone who's trans and lives in a state with absurd laws concerning sex marker changes on official paperwork.
[QUOTE=Tetsmega;47814712]It's not like anybody gives a shit about other people's well being. It's all about thinking you made a change and feeling good about yourself in the name of progression.[/QUOTE] I can assure you, I have a very personal stake in transgender issues.
[QUOTE=thisispain;47814717]Asking for arbitration is by definition not absolute control. And I don't know about manipulate, but public opinion is important to get on your side. It's only by constant and dangerous campaigning by activists which won us advancements in LGBT rights. People had to literally riot in order to get the LGBT community known.[/QUOTE] There is an important distinction between campaigning for awareness and altering government records to subtly influence public thought. I don't even think this would affect what people think, what's weird is the idea behind it. It's like how the government starting printing "in god we trust" on money to scare communists. It didn't do jack shit, but it's still weird, and the people who did it were weird. That isn't to say there aren't other potentially valid reasons for removing the sex category from birth certificates.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;47814743]There is an important distinction between campaigning for awareness and altering government records to subtly influence public thought. I don't even think this would affect what people think, what's weird is the idea behind it. It's like how the government starting printing "in god we trust" on money to scare communists. It didn't do jack shit, but it's still weird, and the people who did it were weird. That isn't to say there aren't other potentially valid reasons for removing sex from birth certificates.[/QUOTE] I just think you're making the wording of it sound a lot more sinister than it actually is. I already mentioned it before, but there's a possibility that it was meant to bring attention to transgender issues -- it's entirely possible that their claims will be rejected. The government printed "in god we trust" as a performative act. I don't think it's fair to call this performative.
[QUOTE=bitches;47814058]To the contrary, actual research instead of silly references indicates that children have a strong sense of gender, and that those who have been forcibly gender-swapped in circumstances not pertaining to transgender people at an early age (surgery included) become horribly dysphoric (much the same way that transgender people become by default) leading to suicide. Early action is good. I'm not saying to give sex reassignment surgery to a ten year old of course, but you shouldn't waive a child's sexual feelings off as petulance either.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Snoberry Tea;47813853]A child very much CAN know their gender. You know how? Look down. If it's an innie, you're a girl! If it's an outie, you're a boy! I'm not against transgenderism, I've talked to a lot of them and dated a few. No problem with it. But a Birth Certificate is a [i]statement of fact document[/i]. It's meant to certify you as a being. The gender you're born as is definitely something that should be on that document.[/QUOTE] They can't know that literally seconds after being born, though. Most birth certificates are filled out within the first few minutes of an infant's existence in the outside world, at a point when they're barely aware enough to perceive that they've been born much less understand the concept of gender. They won't really understand that in any real capacity until they're old enough to walk and talk.
[QUOTE=Snoberry Tea;47813853]A child very much CAN know their gender. You know how? Look down. If it's an innie, you're a girl! If it's an outie, you're a boy! I'm not against transgenderism, I've talked to a lot of them and dated a few. No problem with it. But a Birth Certificate is a [i]statement of fact document[/i]. It's meant to certify you as a being. The gender you're born as is definitely something that should be on that document.[/QUOTE] You are born with a sex, not a gender. [editline]27th May 2015[/editline] haha oops this is 6 pages in, I didn't notice
Isn't it printed down as 'Sex' on a BC Birth Certificate anyways? I thought the entire point of the gender vs sex distinction was to avoid situations like this. Or did we just ditch that mentality entirely?
[QUOTE=thisispain;47814751]I just think you're making the wording of it sound a lot more sinister than it actually is. I already mentioned it before, but there's a possibility that it was meant to bring attention to transgender issues -- it's entirely possible that their claims will be rejected. The government printed "in god we trust" as a performative act. I don't think it's fair to call this performative.[/QUOTE] It's difficult for me to judge precisely what the intent behind the people campaigning for the change is, since I don't see what it could possibly accomplish. I don't think it really matters, this all seems kinda trivial to me. I trust the governmental bodies responsible will see to it that nothing important is altered if there's a reason for it to be there. The point I'm making is that as a matter of principle, attempting to alter public perception through the omission or revision of information is wrong. Nothing more. I hope we can agree?
I swear no successful sane person with any achievements in life ever bitches about things like these. This is so strange that a minority can lobby such great changes that affect literally everyone in country.
[QUOTE=Dissolution;47814836]Isn't it printed down as 'Sex' on a BC Birth Certificate anyways? I thought the entire point of the gender vs sex distinction was to avoid situations like this. Or did we just ditch that mentality entirely?[/QUOTE] It's confusing because at the beginning, the article says [quote]After successfully lobbying provincial and federal governments to make it easier to amend [B]sex[/B] designations on key identity documents...[/quote] and then it switches and talks about removing [B]gender[/B] entirely. If the documents list gender then I would agree with removing it or changing it to "sex", which is less controversial (even though it CAN change) and quite simple to determine at birth. If the documents list both sex and gender for some reason, then just remove gender.
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;47814857]It's confusing because at the beginning, the article says and then it switches and talks about removing [B]gender[/B] entirely. If the documents list gender then I would agree with removing it or changing it to "sex", which is less controversial (even though it CAN change) and quite simple to determine at birth. If the documents list both sex and gender for some reason, then just remove gender.[/QUOTE] I haven't seen a BC certificate in a while but a few google searches show just Sex on everything I can find. That makes this entire thing completely superfluous because sex doesn't mean gender.
[QUOTE=MuffinZerg;47814843]I swear no successful sane person with any achievements in life ever bitches about things like these. This is so strange that a minority can lobby such great changes that affect literally everyone in country.[/QUOTE] Why is it strange that a minority can make it's voice heard? This isn't legless people petitioning to make stairs illegal, it's not as though anyone is likely to be practically inconvenienced by this. You know, aside from data entry workers.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.