Dutch man, 69, who 'identifies as 20 years younger' launches legal battle to change age

[dismal]

No, I don't see it. I see bigots attempting to justify their bigotry with irrelevancies. What's relevant is: "this person identifies as X". I'm not sure what you think gives you the power to say "oh, no, you can't identify as that, you can only identify as this".

It's their individual right, not yours.

You can't see the difference between a physical event and something that happens over time in the human mind?

If you can't see the difference you have no eyes.

Are you saying this Dutch guy did not over time in his mind decide he wants to identify as 49 years old? All the evidence suggests otherwise.

 

[untermensche]

No, I don't see it. I see bigots attempting to justify their bigotry with irrelevancies. What's relevant is: "this person identifies as X". I'm not sure what you think gives you the power to say "oh, no, you can't identify as that, you can only identify as this".

It's their individual right, not yours.

You can't see the difference between a physical event and something that happens over time in the human mind?

If you can't see the difference you have no eyes.

Are you saying this Dutch guy did not over time in his mind decide he wants to identify as 49 years old? All the evidence suggests otherwise.

A birth is not an event in the mind.

He may feel young but there is no feeling of: "my date of birth has changed".

Feeling young is not equivalent to feeling like some past event has changed dates.

There is no feeling of past events changing dates. Nobody can say they feel that. It is pure nonsense.

There is a very legitimate feeling of: "that gender those people put on that certificate is not the gender I identify as".

 

[ruby sparks]

I don't see why they aren't equal unless you're a transageophobic bigot.

That's not really true, is it? You do see, don't you? It's just that you want to have an argument with untermensche.

No, I don't see it. I see bigots attempting to justify their bigotry with irrelevancies. What's relevant is: "this person identifies as X". I'm not sure what you think gives you the power to say "oh, no, you can't identify as that, you can only identify as this".

It's their individual right, not yours.

Ah, well, if you really don't see it then I think you are missing the important distinctions, and also not fully relating to the OP, because the issue isn't about his right to feel (or self-identify as) 49. And this has been pointed out several times! So you appear to be flogging a dead strawman.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I'm not surprised they are not clear, as usual claims made in thise sort of context are at best unclear. There is also the issue of the meaning of "gender" in British vs. American English. At least until recently, in my experience (not much, though), 'gender' was used in the UK in contexts in which 'sex' would have been used in the US.

But in any case, most people in the UK were born before 2004, so the meaning of the claims was not based on the Act they mention. Unless there was - very unlikely - a definition of 'sex' in the UK in the past, the meaning of the words was that in colloquial usage, or else in medical usage if there was any difference between them. I take it that the colloquial meaning in question is not about gametes, but that the sex of an individual (human or not) depends on the gametes they would, under some normal circumstances, produce (analogy: the meaning of 'water' is not about H2O, but whether a liquid (to make it simpler) is water depends on whether it is composed of H2O, at least primarily).

Yes, that definition (in my link) appears to conflate the two terms in a colloquial way, which is odd if it's a Charity dedicated to transgender issues. To me, broadly, sex is biological and gender is psychological (not that the latter isn't ultimately biological of course) and since no one can tell the psychology of a baby, I assumed birth certificates recorded sex, and called it that.

I tend to agree that they recorded sex, but I think the other part (i.e., gender is psychological) is problematic. In a nutshell, the issues are:

1. There are females and males. Females produce (under some normal circumstances) some kind of gametes, whereas males produce another kind. There are extremely rare cases of individuals that can't be classified as either female or male, but not both.
2. There are several differences between females and males. Some of those differences are not mental, whereas others are mental.
3. External genitalia are generally reliable means of classifying humans as females or males.

But then again, the classification (by 2.) tells us a lot about the mind of the individual - maybe not yet as a baby, but then again, male babies are not producing male gametes, either, and in females, the process is only partially complete. But we can tell the sex of a baby by looking at its external organs (in the vast majority of cases), and so we can tell something about its mind too.

Now, I guess you might think the differences between female and male minds are not the psychological differences that are relevant to gender differences. But then, what are the latter, and why is there reason to believe they exist?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

No, I don't see it. I see bigots attempting to justify their bigotry with irrelevancies. What's relevant is: "this person identifies as X". I'm not sure what you think gives you the power to say "oh, no, you can't identify as that, you can only identify as this".

It's their individual right, not yours.

Ah, well, if you really don't see it then I think you are missing the important distinctions, and also not fully relating to the OP, because the issue isn't about his right to feel (or self-identify as) 49. And this has been pointed out several times! So you appear to be flogging a dead strawman.

The argument is being made here that a Birth Certificate is an immutable document. The problem is, that argument is being made by people who presumably have no problem with altering a birth certificate, if it is altered for the "right reasons". Untermensche is giving us a very good demonstration, as he never strays from the party line (no matter how much he pretends to denounce the party).

 

[dismal]

No, I don't see it. I see bigots attempting to justify their bigotry with irrelevancies. What's relevant is: "this person identifies as X". I'm not sure what you think gives you the power to say "oh, no, you can't identify as that, you can only identify as this".

It's their individual right, not yours.

Ah, well, if you really don't see it then I think you are missing the important distinctions, and also not fully relating to the OP, because the issue isn't about his right to feel (or self-identify as) 49. And this has been pointed out several times! So you appear to be flogging a dead strawman.

Sure, like you can't sit at this lunch counter because your skin color is different was an "important" distinction to some. We have a word for people who call distinctions like that "important": bigot.

 

[dismal]

Are you saying this Dutch guy did not over time in his mind decide he wants to identify as 49 years old? All the evidence suggests otherwise.

A birth is not an event in the mind.

He may feel young but there is no feeling of: "my date of birth has changed".

Feeling young is not equivalent to feeling like some past event has changed dates.

There is no feeling of past events changing dates. Nobody can say they feel that. It is pure nonsense.

There is a very legitimate feeling of: "that gender those people put on that certificate is not the gender I identify as".

And this guy has a legitimate feeling "that the date of birth those people put on that certificate is not the date I identify as being born on".

 

[ruby sparks]

The argument is being made here that a Birth Certificate is an immutable document.

I'm not sure who if anyone is making that particular argument, I've lost track of who is really arguing what, but what I am saying is that one change on a birth certificate is not necessarily the same as another change on a birth certificate.

For example, say that whoever designated a certain gender on a birth certificate was (unknowingly) mistaken, as it turns out, or it recorded sex and that has actually changed. Ok, those might be, let's say, valid reasons to change the certificate (or at least provide a new one, since as far as I know the old one is not replaced, merely that another, updated one is also issued) but the same could not be said of the birth date. That remains what it was at birth and has not changed.

This seems to be what untermensche for example has just said in his last post.

 

[laughing dog]

Someone is born on a specific date. Hence a birth certificate identifies the actual date of birth. Changing that based on feelings is a lie.

Maybe he should lobby for a certificate of effective age.

 

[untermensche]

Are you saying this Dutch guy did not over time in his mind decide he wants to identify as 49 years old? All the evidence suggests otherwise.

A birth is not an event in the mind.

He may feel young but there is no feeling of: "my date of birth has changed".

Feeling young is not equivalent to feeling like some past event has changed dates.

There is no feeling of past events changing dates. Nobody can say they feel that. It is pure nonsense.

There is a very legitimate feeling of: "that gender those people put on that certificate is not the gender I identify as".

And this guy has a legitimate feeling "that the date of birth those people put on that certificate is not the date I identify as being born on".

No he doesn't.

He says he feels younger.

He feels like he is living in the past, how he felt at some time in the past, not born on a different date.

There is no way to feel like being born on a different date.

You are defending an absurdity.

A feeling that cannot exist.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

And this guy has a legitimate feeling "that the date of birth those people put on that certificate is not the date I identify as being born on".

No he doesn't.

He says he feels younger.

If he feels younger, doesn't that mean he feels like his birthdate doesn't reflect his age?

By the way, now that it is a given that you have transagephobia, what's your opinion on transracialism?

 

[untermensche]

And this guy has a legitimate feeling "that the date of birth those people put on that certificate is not the date I identify as being born on".

No he doesn't.

He says he feels younger.

If he feels younger, doesn't that mean he feels like his birthdate doesn't reflect his age?

No.

It means he feels like he felt at an earlier time.

It has nothing to do with his birth date. That is immutable.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

If he feels younger, doesn't that mean he feels like his birthdate doesn't reflect his age?

No.

It means he feels like he felt at an earlier time.

He apparently feels that his birthdate is not an accurate reflection of his age. You are telling him he is wrong.

By the way, now that it is a given that you have transagephobia, what's your opinion on transracialism?

 

[dismal]

If he feels younger, doesn't that mean he feels like his birthdate doesn't reflect his age?

No.

It means he feels like he felt at an earlier time.

It has nothing to do with his birth date. That is immutable.

According to the article he identifies as having been born on 11 March 1969.

Mr Ratelband was born on 11th March 1949, but says he feels at least 20 years younger and wants to change his birth date to 11th March 1969.

 

[untermensche]

According to the article he identifies as having been born on 11 March 1969.

It is not possible to identify as being born on a different date.

There is no feeling of the day you are born.

There is just feeling good or bad.

If a person feels good they feel good.

They do not feel like events in the past have by magic changed.

You have given no reason to think the feeling is actually something possible.

It is not possible to feel like your date of birth has changed.

You can only feel good for 65 or bad for 65 or some combination over time.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

According to the article he identifies as having been born on 11 March 1969.

It is not possible to identify as being born on a different date.

Ah, so he is doing the impossible.

There is no feeling of the day you are born.

So he is feeling what cannot be felt.

I'm so glad that reality is limited by your imagination.

 

[untermensche]

Ah, so he is doing the impossible.

No. He is claiming to be doing the impossible.

He is claiming to use feelings to change events in time.

Adult minds understand how that makes his claim worthless.

There is no feeling of the day you are born.

So he is feeling what cannot be felt.

I'm so glad that reality is limited by your imagination.

There is no feeling of the date you were born.

It is knowledge not a feeling.

There is no feeling that Monday is after Sunday.

That is knowledge not a feeling.

Adult humans should know the difference.

 

[dismal]

Ah, so he is doing the impossible.

There is no feeling of the day you are born.

So he is feeling what cannot be felt.

I'm so glad that reality is limited by your imagination.

His hatred for chronomorphism blinds him to the possible, even when it's right before him. There are none so blind as those who will not see.

 

[untermensche]

Ah, so he is doing the impossible.

There is no feeling of the day you are born.

So he is feeling what cannot be felt.

I'm so glad that reality is limited by your imagination.

His hatred for chronomorphism blinds him to the possible, even when it's right before him. There are none so blind as those who will not see.

Tell me how exactly a feeling changes historic events.

Explain the process.

Gender identification is not known at birth.

It is not an historic event. It is something in the mind.

 

[J842P]

His hatred for chronomorphism blinds him to the possible, even when it's right before him. There are none so blind as those who will not see.

Tell me how exactly a feeling changes historic events.

Explain the process.

Gender identification is not known at birth.

It is not an historic event. It is something in the mind.

Birth certificates don't state your gender identification. They state your sex.