This’ll be interesting. “But the court said there would be practical problems in allowing people to change their birth date, as it would mean legally deleting part of their lives.”
Which is exactly what happens when sex on a birth certificate is changed retroactively.
Which is exactly what happens when sex on a birth certificate is changed retroactively.
“The judge asked Mr Ratelband about the status of his early years, from 1949 to 1969, if his official birth date was put back.
"For whom did your parents care in those years? Who was that little boy back then?," the judge asked.”
The same dilemma applies to sex change.
"For whom did your parents care in those years? Who was that little boy back then?," the judge asked.”
The same dilemma applies to sex change.
What was the status of a “transwoman” in his early years if his birth certificate says he was born female? Whom did his parents care for? Who is that little boy?
Are judges waking up to the legal fiction created by self-ID laws?
Are judges waking up to the legal fiction created by self-ID laws?
Interesting that the judge, without having given a verdict yet, refers to the effect of changing one’s identity on the lives of others. Changing sex means the mother of a son gave birth to a daughter. The parents raised a girl. His siblings have a sister.
His wife is a lesbian. His children have two mothers ad no (biological) father. This has a huge impact on people’s lives that so far has been completely ignored to coddle the person who wants to change sex. Spousal veto is currently viewed as an abhorrent violation of rights.
The question of the fictitious erasure of an entire period in one’s life also applies to people who undergo a sexual change. For example, rapists will no longer be on the sex offenders register after an official name and sex change.
What if Ratelband (who btw is well known as an unhinged person and was convicted of abusing his ex-wife) wants to annul a marriage contracted in, say, his 20s on the basis that he was a child and not legally allowed to marry? Could he deny paternal responsibility for his kids?
This is why parental/filial relations are often excluded from self-ID laws: even if the sex on one’s birth certificate is changed, one’s birth sex will still appear on the birth certificate of one’s children, creating the fiction that a woman can be a father and a man a mother.
This is the case e.g. in Germany. It’s only a matter of time before the courts will have to clarify the legal fiction created by the law. It will be interesting to see the verdict in the Ratelband case. It will be hard to argue that age ID differs substantially from gender ID.
If age ID is equated to gender ID it will become possible for people to ID into retirement age and claim a state pension. This is no different from people who used self-ID laws to chang sex in order to retire early (Argentina) or get cheaper insurance (Canada).
And of course this opens up a whole other can of worms which is paedophilia. I won’t go into that on an empty stomach, you can fill in the blanks.
We’ll be watching the outcome of this trial with interest.
We’ll be watching the outcome of this trial with interest.
For entertainment: a video of Emile Ratelband trying to walk through a glass door four times.
Btw when asked about the comparison with people who want to change sex he referred to them as "he, she or it". So Mr Ratelband may be trans-aged but he's definitely transphobic.
