Was wondering what peoples thoughts were on This?

To me I don't think his birth certifate should be changed as such to say he was born male. But it should be added to the bottom in that section about changes since his birth was registered to say something along the lines of "now known as a male" or better worded. I don't think orginal records should be changed but additions made. I also don't think the addition should now say his sex is male because hes not yet, if he was to have the surgery then the bottom could have "now male" (again better worded).

Of course it shouldn't be changed to "male" on the birth certificate. This person was not born male, they were born female (and to me personally, they still are and always will be technically female)

Agree, ladies

I agree with your Jazy84 - an addition could and should be made.

Ah I'm glad to hear its not just me. I try my hardest to not be judgemental of peoples choices and lifestyles, even if I don't understand stand them. When I read this I really had the strong erge to say NO it shouldn't be changed but thought hold on what makes me feel like that. I still don't think it should be changed but an addition made and wonder what others thoughts were and weather I was being judgemental.

I agree he was born Female therefore his birth certificate should reflect that.

I wouldn't have expected that type of bigotry from you Squidge. Bit taken aback to be honest.

Why does anyone here care what it says on his birth certificate? He's not trying to erase history but merely have the right to marry and to live a life free of the embarrasment of having to reveal private information when dealing with official forms etc. I wish him well - don't like his chances though, we're still full of transphobia in Australia, as this thread aptly illustrates.

Well he is if he wants his birth certificate changed.


I don't think this thread does illustrate transphobia at all. merely a discussion on how/if the birth certificate should be editted. Your right he should be free to marry who he likes ect. but that isn't what we are discussing that would be changing laws. Why can't they do an amendment to his certificate and also change the laws to allow gay marriage. Then he is free to live as either sex and also marry which sex he desires. But you are right Australia is full of transphobia,and homophobia.


Squidge I do agree with you that yes technically he is still female because it is DNA which provides us with what gender. How ever I accept that even now he feels like a man therefore wants to live his life as such. I know there is such a thing as gender confusion where DNA says one thing but heart, mind and soul are screaming the other. Who are we to judge and say they can't live their life as they choose.

I wouldn't say I was bigoted thanks e*liz, I am being technical. If I was being bigotted I would be saying that they should not be allowed to live life as a male, however I did not say that.

I work in science and it's just how I see things. It is perfectly fine to live life as the opposite sex and be identified as such, however on the genetics level, which is what my degree was mainly in, they're still technically female. You can't change that, doesn't mean you can't LIVE as the opposite sex so no, I'm not judging at all. I never said I was. Just stating facts, is all.

I think he should be able to change it. I also think people need to be more educated about the transsexual/transgendered community. It's not as black & white as some people think.

No, I don't believe an original birth certificate should be changed under any circumstances. It is a legal and accountable document that registers the details of a person upon the day of their birth. Hospital and doctor's records also back up what's on the certificate too. This should also apply to all primary documents and certificates because they are a true record of what occurred at that time.

However, legislation should be changed to allow a secondary and still accountable and accepted certificate(s) to be printed to assist people like Mr Montgomery, or in situations where there was a mistake in the details of the original certificate.

ETA - and before I get roasted for being insensitive to Mr Montgomery's personal situation, his case has shown there is a flaw in our current system and by taking it to the courts and media, it exposes this flaw. If there was a secondary certificate that superseded but referred to and didn't change the original, it would solve the problem. Our system doesn't have this but I can see of many situations where it would be the best solution and by it being in the courts, this may be the outcome.

Why use the pronoun 'they'? Why not use the correct pronoun, 'he'? To me, that belies a real unwillingness to accept transsexuals as they are and as they want to be accepted. It's considered highly offensive, actually, in the trans community to use the incorrect or neutral pronoun.




This is very true. Squidge, do you routinely ask to check people's DNA and/or genitals before assigning them the sex you think they 'really' have, no matter how they choose to 'live?' Because there are many, many people in our community who are intersex or transsexual - and therefore their DNA may not match what it says on their birth certificate or what is in their pants might not be what you expect from looking at them clothed - but who cares? It's not yours, or anyone's business.

What Squidge's post above says to transsexual people basically, is 'I don't really believe you exist but I guess I can tolerate you.' It is very simplistic to talk about sex as being solely to do with X/Y chromosomes, DNA or genitals. We now know that sex (and I mean biological sex, not only socially defined gender although that is even more fluid) is really not as simple as You boy, You girl! Not at all. And even looking at DNA, there are more than thirty different genes which can determine sex, outside of the chromosomes. Now, this means that if you were to sort through DNA you'd have a harder time saying definitely who was genetically male and female, and this is without even considering people who are transsexual or intersex, whose bodies and brains may not quite match what their DNA says anyway, perhaps for hormonal reasons. Estimates are that there are around 90+ sexes but we prefer to put them into one of two boxes. And honestly, when determining sex at birth, genitals are all that are taken into account when there is more to the story (and certainly for an intersex person with genitals that don't easily fit male or female, performing surgery isn't going to change the other sex characteristics not yet apparent.) This is all getting a bit off topic but I just really think that in insisting that YOU better know someone's sex based on 'science' than they do, you're erasing their identity. There is a long history of science being used to oppress and erase transgender, transsexual and intersexed people and the fact is that science is not infallible or unbiased. Plenty of scientists were happy to argue that black people are stupider, for example, and they did research and wrote papers. But we have discredited them and we now know that science can also be biased and bigoted. And the bottom line is, you do not know what Mr Montogomery's DNA says, you're making an assumption based on your belief that sex is a simple binary and doctors who see a vulva at birth are always 100% right in their assignment.

So of course, it's your right to hold the opinion that a person retains the sex they were assigned at birth regardless of what changes they make in their life, socially, hormonally or surgically.

But it's my opinon that that is definitely a form of transphobia and therefore bigotry.



I don't think this is an unreasonable position. But I'm wondering why we need to privilege the first certificate, and privilege 'history' over the current life situation of a person. Why is the 'historical' document more important than making it a bit easier for a transperson in what is essentially a really hard road to walk? I think maybe either side could be argued here. I'm just wondering. (I mean, we presumably all have cis privilege here, so it's very easy for us to talk about secondary documents etc. as an intellectual exercise. It's not happening to us, it's not our life, we don't face this type of discrimination and the threat of violence, daily, like transpeople do.)

I love the way you think, e*liz. I just wish I was as articulate as you!

Are there? That's fascinating. Further reading please?

I have nothing useful to say apart from the fact that I think he looks like the bloke from Yes, Minister.

Where a birth certificate is considered a primary identifying document I have no problem with it being changed. If it means retconning a record of birth it becomes more nebulous in my fuzzled mind (I have a big problem with negating history), though the above quote has gone and complicated my thinking for me.

You can read in to that what you will but it is not what I meant, and I have used the term "they" singularly before for other people.


No, I couldn't care less. Never did I say that I care what sex they choose to live as, please show me where I said that. Or are you reading in to things again? All I said was that basically, at grass roots level, a person is what their chromosomes say they are. So? Apart from that, I couldn't care less how they choose to live their life. And I never said it was my business. I was asked my opinion on this one case, and I gave it. I don't go around judging people like you may believe I do.


What?! Now tell me where I said that I don't believe that they exist? Far out, what a stupid assumption to make Of COURSE they exist, of COURSE they can choose to live their life as they choose, I never said they could not. However in a case such as this, where the sex was female at birth, I believe that at a grassroots level they will always be female! Doesn't mean that I don't believe that they can live life as a male!


I never said that I "knew better". Can you stop assuming things please? Ok, so I don't know if he was XX, XXY (these are assigned male though), X (female) or whatever at birth. Neither do you. If he was indeed XX, as a large majority of females are at birth (but indeed, not all), then at the DNA level they are female! BUT! Does NOT mean that they can't choose to live as a male, and I do accept that! Does it really matter to you that if they are indeed an XX, that I know they are still fundamentally female? Who cares! I accept him for who he is, that's all that really counts.


Yes.

Your call. I don't understand why you think that, however I am quite happy to stand corrected should it be revealed if he's XX at birth or whatever.

The 90+ number comes from reading and discussing it twice in two different subjects at uni - history and women's studies. I believe it refers to different kinds of intersex or sex variance. Probably, only 1-2% of people are intersexed - it's hard to know exactly how many as some forms of sex variance don't really show up until, for example, someone seeks fertility testing. I was intrigued by this large number of variations as well so I asked my friend who is an Ob/gyn about it and she confirmed that yes, that is an accurate number - but I don't have a source to hand. If someone has good evidence debunking that then please do fire away! The main point is, when people think intersex they tend to think equal female/male hermaphrodite but that is not the whole picture at all.

(Mind you, that doesn't actually include genderqueer people, who may have 'normal' binary sex characteristics but difference in gender presentation or non-binary concept of gender.)

Some argue that we should have a non-binary concept of sex and gender so that people who choose to can live as their 'true' intersex gender rather than choosing one, or people who don't identify with either gender can live without being put into a box. This is why some people employ the gender-neutral pronouns zie (he/she) etc.

There is information here about intersex. These issues are all different to trans* issues though, and I'm muddying the waters quite a bit, sorry!

There's some interesting stuff about trans people and documentation here.

Squidge: I'm sorry if I've offended you. But terms like 'fundamentally female' are very problematic when talking about trans* people, and they really put up a red flag. I know someone who is 'fundamentally female' to her, to me, to her partner... but to you she would be 'fundamentally male' because she was born with a penis. It's very upsetting to have her - and the identity of all transpeople - erased in that way. I know you are talking 'technically' but I - and many people - reject the notion that sex is 'technically' only about DNA anyway. There is so much more going on. So I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on that one.

I've read that article several times and I think the crux of this issue is not that he's changed his gender, but the red tape and administrative difficulties he's experiencing because he's changed his gender. The article and the court case is worded in such a way to evoke an emotional and sympathetic response from the general public but the basic issue is he wants his birth certificate re-done because he cannot enter into certain legally binding contracts because of it (ie, marriage).

He's right to fight this; there is a flaw in our system for people like Mr Montgomery who experience huge amounts of red tape because his adult circumstances no longer match his birth circumstances and this would occur in more than just trans-gender cases. However, changing the birth records I do not think is the solution. I have a degree in History and I work in administration so I know too well the value of an preserved primary document, even if it contains errors. That's why I think the idea of a secondary certificate that supersedes the first would work.

In Mr Montgomery's personal case, maybe the courts could do a one-off re-issue of a superseding document or better still, eventually pass a legislation where more people had access to this service.

*sorry for the mini hijack*

You should read her blog! One post after another of awesomeness!



Nephthys I am curious as to why the preserved primary document holds such value even if it contains errors?

I am confused. My reading of this article is that if he was to have the surgery to change his genitals, then he would be given an altered birth certificate. They keep making reference to him "being forced to undergo dangerous surgery". So does that mean if you've had gender reassignment surgery (I'm sorry I don't know the correct terminology for it) then you CAN have your birth certificate altered, or have another document issued to supersede it?

If that is the case, then I can't see why he shouldn't receive the same treatment as someone who has had the surgery, because he lives his life as a male.

I would be interested in having this clarified, because they article didn't explain it properly. Does anyone know?

Glad I'm not the only one that was confused! I still took it as admin problems but it just goes to show the true quality of the editorial really...


Because an original document is a true and factual representation of a fixed point in time. If you change an original document, it's almost like... well, altering history, for lack of a better description. Even the errors themselves are part of that history and what occurred in that moment. A superseded document acknowledges and references the earlier primary source with the true and factual representation of a new fixed point in time. In history, an original source is practically sacrosanct. If we keep an original source, it helps explain why things have a certain outcome.

True, this is limited by the author's ability to describe/record the events as they see fit, but even their individual view and intents behind the document are still what is factual for that moment.

Sorry, I don't think I'm explaining this well!

To answer your question Mel - yes, for a couple of decades Australian post-op transsexuals have been able to obtain new birthcertificates, but I don't know how onerous the process is or how it varies between states.

If a new birth certificate is issued, it doesn't have to mean erasing all previous records. I don't know what the current practice is with handling these records.

I agree with this, not quite so eloquently though. When filling in forms, any person who has had a name change (through marriage or another reason) is asked if they have been known by another name. While I appreciate the different circumstance, it may occasionally need to be acknowledged that he has previously lived as a female in a similar way that is is sometimes needed for me to acknowledge that I was known by my maiden name. I do not agree with originals being altered but would not have a problem with an addendum or a secondary document as suggested above by Nephthys.

It seems like this is a sensitive topic, I feel like I need to add that I have no opinion on Mr Montgomery's sexual and gender choices, that's none of my business. I was merely responding to the question posed by the OP. I hope that a satisfactory solution can be achieved and he can be happy and marry as he wishes.

I agree with Neph and Flipper gal.

I actually have an ammendment on my birth certificate, as my fathers name was spelt wrong on the original We had trouble when applying for my passport, as the names didn't match, and when we asked about having it changed we were told was all they could do was amend. Personally I think that legislation should dictate that amendments can be made for gender in this instance.

The thing is, there is a big difference between a wrong spelling and wrong gender. Trans people face discrimination and the threat of violence, so having it clearly stated on a document that they may need to share with an employer/school/licensing authority etc. is not in their best interests.

There's some food for thought, re violence against transsexuals, here: http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2010...nd-trans-women/

Did anyone happen to see MediaWatch? Apparently the ABC news inadvertantly publicised Mr Montgomery's phone and home address - something which is very frightening. I hope he's safe.