Frank Uriah #fundie

Frank Uriah #fundie groups.google.com

(In response to NYC allowing transgendered people to change their birth certificates:)

So, the New York State Ministry of Information has activated their memory hole to please the trannies and it's supposed to be a "good" thing.

A "birth certificate" is supposed to reflect information about a person at the time of their birth. If some nutcase later claims to be trapped in the wrong time stream, galaxy or gender that does not make it OK to change their vital records to reflect their delusion.

I wonder when terrorism fetishists will begin demanding the right to carry bombs everywhere they go. After all, we have to cater to everyone's sexual hang-ups no matter how disruptive to the existing system they might be.

("bobandcarole" responded: "Shemales, faggots that don't know who they are......")

36 comments

old comment by David D.G.

With all due respect to Yahweh and others undergoing transgenderization, I actually agree that birth certificates, being medical and legal records, should NEVER be changed except to correct a factual error (e.g., wrong date, misspelled name, etc.), and they certainly should not be altered to reflect a change created decades after the fact.
We don't change birth certificates to reflect the name change of anyone whose name is changed later in life -- neither women getting married, nor kids getting adopted, nor Prince (or whatever he's calling himself this week), nor anyone else. I don't see why we should change the record of a person's sex at birth retroactively; it makes neither medical nor legal sense. That said, however, the violently non-sequitur homophobic rant included with the opinion above makes this post distinctly fundie, not to mention disturbing. ~David D.G.

old comment by Kalli

David D.G.
As someone who was adopted, I can assure you that birth certificates are altered all the time. When I was adopted 39 years ago, my B.C. was changed to reflect my adoptive parents as my parents. Two years ago, when I changed my name, I submitted paper work to the office of vital records and had my name changed on my B.C. A birth certificate is a record of your birth, and that record needs to relfect who you ARE, not who you were. And trust me, I've been in a position where not all my documents had the same name on them. (I was in the process of changing them) I was told that any documents in my former name were not valid, even though I had a court ordered name change document tying me back to my old name. No, it is very important that birth certificates be changed. Not only is it a matter of having documents that pass muster, it is also a matter of safety. As for the nutbag who wrote the above. What an idiot, and not all transsexuals are faggots. There are some FtM's that are gay, but a gay MtF is a lesbian, not a faggot.

old comment by David D.G.

Kalli: Oh, well, I guess it's education day for me, then. Thanks for the correction.
Frankly, though, I think that that is NOT how a birth certificate SHOULD be used; I think it SHOULD reflect who you WERE when you were born, not who or what you are now. But apparently that's just my own view of things. I knew, of course, that there is paperwork to reflect name changes and so on, but I never heard of one's actual birth certificate getting changed to reflect this. What's up with that? Are women supposed to get their birth certificates changed to reflect their married name -- repeatedly, if they get divorced and remarried? That seems ridiculous to me; one's birth document should (in my opinion) reflect the original state of affairs, and other documents can reflect the changes that come afterward. ~David D.G.

old comment by glyptodon

David: I definitely see your point. I wonder (since I have no idea), whether, or how, previous versions of birth certificates are stored or recorded, and linked to the most current version? It would sure be a pain in the ass for historians and biographers if no record was left of the previous ones, or if it was difficult to trace.
I guess it calls into question the whole function of the birth certificate. Is it simply a medical record stating time and place of birth, weight, biological parents, recorded name, etc.? That's one purpose, but it's also used as a form of identification later in one's life. On the one hand, it might be useful to know the information as it was originally recorded, for some purposes... but also, if aspects of one's identity have changed in later years (adoption, change of name, gender transition, etc.), how is one going to connect that current persona to the original medical records (establishing that they were born in a certain time and place)? And of course issues of privacy and such, with biological/adoptive parents and sex at birth, for a transgendered person who doesn't want to be "outed," etc... since birth certificates are so often used as a source for identity information that becomes publicly known. I don't know, it brings up a lot of interesting issues actually. Why is it okay to change the sex, or the parent, but not, say, the date and location? Unless you can do that too? o_O On another note, I like "neoGodwin."

old comment by Brenz

Um...I am afraid to say I agree about the certificates themselves.

I understand the desire to protect the privacy of the trasgendered individual who has a right to the pursuit of happiness, but whatever their identity and pursuant surgeries, if you're born a boy or a girl, that's pretty much what it ought to say on your birth certificate.

I just don't like ret-conning. It's disingenuous. Like he said, it's the memory hole to appease people's self-perceptions. They're valid self-perceptions, but changing the birth certificate is to lie about the past to appease the present. Yeah, it doesn't hurt anyone, but altering official records to me is creepy.

That said, this guy is vitriolic, and that terrorist rant is weiiiiird.

Frank Uriah #fundie groups.google.com

36 comments

Confused?