• WatDabney@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    5 months ago

    “At birth” isn’t an ideal - it’s a fact. FFS - it’s in the actual name of the certificate.

    The exact and only point of a birth certificate is to record that on such-and-such date at such-and-such time, a baby was born to [this] person, and it possessed [these] distinguishing characteristics. That’s it. Who or what that baby became later in life isn’t relevant. At all.

    In literally any circumstance where a birth certificate is needed, “now” is going to be more useful than information that is decades out of date.

    Which is in fact exactly why I said that “that’s an argument against using, or requiring, a birth certificate as ID” - because a birth certificate, of necessity, is a record of information that’s significantly out-of-date.

    • Ada@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      The ideal in question isn’t “at birth”, it’s whatever it is that drives folk to think “at birth” somehow matters more than “now”

      because a birth certificate, of necessity, is a record of information that’s significantly out-of-date.

      There is no such necessity. I live in Australia. Here, trans folk can get their birth certificate amended to reflect their correct gender.

      If it was a “necessity” that it not be changed, that wouldn’t be possible.

      Your insistence that it can’t be changed “for reasons” isn’t a necessity, it’s an ideal (and a harmful one at that).

      • WatDabney@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        The ideal in question isn’t “at birth”, it’s whatever it is that drives folk to think “at birth” somehow matters more than “now”

        If that’s the point you want to argue, you’ll have to go find somebody who holds that ideal, which means someone other than me.

        My point is and always has been very simple - a birth certificate is a just that - a record that on some specific date at some specific time, a baby was born to some specific person. That’s it. That’s all it is.

        That doesn’t mean or even imply that “‘at birth’ matters more than ‘now’.” It means that a birth certificate has one and only one job - to record a birth - and anything and everything after that is some other document’s job.

        And in fact, I would say it’s undeniable that “now” is more important than “at birth,” which, again, is exactly why the very first thing I said was that, to me, the whole issue is an argument against using, or requiring, a birth certificate for ID.

        To me, it’s as if you’re arguing that a doorbell should also be a microwave oven, and when I point out that a doorbell’s job is to be a doorbell, you accuse me of holding the “ideal” that doorbells are more important than microwave ovens.

        • Ada@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          As I said, Australian birth certificates don’t work the way you describe. They aren’t static and locked in to “at birth” as they’re able to be updated.

          The fact that many birth certificates work this way means that treating “at birth” as sacrosanct isn’t a requirement. It’s a preference. And in this case, a preference that actively hurts people, whilst helping no one. You value a false notion of data purity over the lived reality of the people whose lives are damaged by not being able to update their birth certificates.

          Even your fix works around the idea that data can’t be changed or updated, when the simplest solution, in place already in many countries, is to let go of the idea that old data is somehow more important than the people that data is from

          • WatDabney@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            And that’s it. No matter how many times and in how many different ways I explain my point, you insist on dishonestly assigning sinister motives to me, and there’s absolutely no reason I need to take that sort of abuse from anyone.

            Blocked.

            • Ada@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              5 months ago

              “I’m not an idealisist! I’m just so upset by your insistence that data purity doesn’t trump the needs of living people, that I’m going to block you!”

              And to clarify, I never suggested that you were a bigot or had sinister motives. I suggested that you perceive data purity as some sort of ideal that needs to be upheld at all costs. And because you prioritise data purity, all of your “solutions” sustain data purity, but do it in ways that just won’t happen.

              But in the mean time, in the world we are both living in right now, a change that doesn’t uphold data purity as the primary goal, is achievable, and literally saves lives.

              You aren’t sinister. You just have your priorities in the wrong place, because to you, this is hypothetical and driven by an idealised perspective of what the world could be, rather than the reality of what it is right now, and the harm that is already happening because of it

      • Madison420@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        Do they maintain a record of it’s alterations though.

        Ed: answer yes, so there is still record that it is not your birth gender it just isn’t easily accessible unless the legal system gets involved.

        If you were born in N.S.W. and have had gender reassignment surgery, you can apply to have your birth certificate amended to reflect your correct gender. The new birth certificate will not show that you have changed your gender, but there will be a note on your new certificate that says your birth was “previously registered in another name”. Your birth will be registered in the current year showing the new sex. Access to your original birth record is restricted by legislation, but can be accessed under certain circumstances

        • Ada@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          Yep, which is fine. A record of all amendments to official documents is expected. That’s not the issue though. The issue is the version of the document that people need to use in daily life. And that should be relevant and current.

          • Madison420@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            We do not have that in the us as name and gender changes are generally civil suit that only maintain limited private record that is not indexable by relevant agencies.

            It’s why it’s an issue to change them, they’re going to imply credit or identity theft would be easier if alterations were allowed.