Having Male Parts No Longer Blocks Being a Woman Legally in Ontario, Canada

[Beth-Lock]

A recent rulling by the Human Rights Tribunal in the Canadian province of Ontario, will allow for that jursidiction, the M be changed to an F on birth certificates, (of those born in Ontario), of transsexuals without requiring GRS any longer. Ontario Driver's Licences already can be changed on certification of taking female hormones.

[sandra-leigh]

I didn't know that about Ontario driver's licenses (but I've never had a driver's license.)

I was born in Ontario so this ruling could have implications for me, if the legislature does not overrule it (the tribunal suspended the effect of the ruling for 6 months to give the legislature time to amend the current laws.)

[Marleena]

Very interesting Beth! So I assume an enhanced driver's license might help the girls cross the border enfemme easier? I always wondered how difficult it could be at Customs if a girl didn't match her Male I.D. photos.

[whowhatwhen]

Wow, I'm proud of my province!
And I can't wait for the river of conserva-tears.

[Julia_in_Pa]

Beth,

That's fantastic!!

I'm very happy for everyone in the province.
May this spread nationwide and may it dip south to the U.S.


Julia

[Katesback]

Thinking its best that the birth certificate is changed after SRS. Sorry but it does not sound reasonable to get a F on it with you still have testicles between your legs and can be a father. Sorry but I am guessing that this legislation wont pass.

Katie

[Kathryn Martin]

Has anyone read this decision. I am quite sure that the decision will be appealed for a variety of reasons. It is an incredibly far reaching decision, that finds all amendments to gender designation based on any form of medical intervention in violation of the Human Rights Code. The actual effect of the decision is the Tribunal ordering the government to come up with a different threshold condition for the amendment to a birth registration.

Sorry, but on this one I am with Kate, it would open the door for anyone to simply say they are F to be entitled to F on identifying documentation. This will turn out to a backfire of the highest order because it will play on the most basest fear of people and this will lead possibly to legislative change that will set us back 50 years. Good luck with that.

The decision discusses as a possible solution a similar one used by the Department of Transportation for drivers licenses which was done in 2005. A comment made is "Realistically, probably the best criterion would be a letter from the person’s doctor that they are living in the gender that they wish to be assigned to and that they identify as, ......” This delivers us further into the machinery of a medical system while purporting to reduve discrimination. When the Canadian Human Right Act was brought before the house for the amendment to include "gender identity" and "gender expression" it was dubbed the "Bathroom Bill". This will go much further in my view.

Not a well thought through decision. No "yeah" from me.

And here is the piece from the Montreal Gazette (http://www.montrealgazette.com/health/Transgender+person+with+penis+legally+woman/6488683/story.html)

[Linda Z]

I with Kate and Kathryn some things need to be present and missing for a Identifying ID.

[sandra-leigh]

Thinking its best that the birth certificate is changed after SRS. Sorry but it does not sound reasonable to get a F on it with you still have testicles between your legs and can be a father.

I've been on HRT far too long to be a father now, unless through some medical miracle. It isn't clear that I was ever able to father (though perhaps I was just "low" rather than "sterile".

So, I'm not clear: if someone is determined, after medical tests, to be sterile, then since they cannot be a father, does that mean that they should pass your test, Kate ? How about if they've had an irreversible vasectomy (or the same effect, e.g., as a result of prostate surgery)?

Hmmm... testicles.... so if someone has an orchi, you'd be okay with them getting the marker change?

====

You know, there are members of this forum whom doctors refuse to perform SRS on, because their medical situation makes SRS extremely risky. So Kate ... Kathryn... Linda... what does a person have to do to prove that they are a real transsexual? Find a backroom doctor who is willing to operate despite the risk, and then die on the table to establish the point that they would have gotten SRS if they could have? Is that what it takes, Kate? Kathryn, do I have to post links to posts from members saying specifically that the doctors will not operate on them? And Linda, would you favor posthumous birth-certificate gender marker changes for those who commit suicide once the doctors refuse to operate?

I don't want to hear any waffling: I want to hear how people who cannot be operated on are to live their lives if proof of SRS is to be the only accepted legal standard for gender change.

[pamela_a]

I'm in Minnesota and was able to get my birth certificate corrected with a court order. This was done while I was pre-op and the judge approved it only because of the support letters from my GYN and therapist. While I understand the possible "down side" of it I'm very thankful I was able to get my BC corrected while I was still a woman suffering from a serious birth defect.

[Kathryn Martin]

So Kate ... Kathryn... Linda... what does a person have to do to prove that they are a real transsexual?

I don't want to hear any waffling: I want to hear how people who cannot be operated on are to live their lives if proof of SRS is to be the only accepted legal standard for gender change.

Sandra, did you read all of the 95 pages of the decision and really considered the implications? Have you considered that the government now has six months to come up with whatever other screening and gatekeeping process they will put in place to give access to the change of gender marker? Have you considered that now any person with an irreversible vasectomy can apply for a gender marker change and amendment to a birth certificate no matter whether they actually are transsexual?

Do I think that the provisions in the Vital Statistics Act are a real problem. Of course I do. But what will replace it. And will this be a benefit to transsexuals and transgender persons? That in my view is the real question. This is not a good decision because the whole policy background behind this decision has not been thought through by the Tribunal and it's decision. The whole registration system is built on corroborative evidence. A boy is registered as a boy because a doctor certifies he has a penis. A girl is certified to be a girl because a doctor certifies that she has a vagina. That is registration in the first instance.

Maybe we as a society need to de-gender our social contract. The Swedes are doing it, there will be only gender neutral pronouns etc. Maybe children's birth certificates do not need to contain gender markers. Based on what is proposed we will be further delivered into the hands of the medical establishment machine.

People tend to shout yeah as loud as they shout boo, and invariably we end up with hatred because of it. I suggest you take the time and really read this decision and think about it's implications both in it's social and political dimensions and then we have another discussion. In my view this was a hasty decision without looking down the road. It will come back to bite us, and it's victory will be Pyrrhic.

[Bree-asaurus]

Are we seriously worried about some nut who wants to pretend he's legally a girl slipping by? Who cares...

If I can get an F on my driver's license, I should be able to get an F on my birth certificate, passport, etc.

Why should I be stuck with a false designation because I either can't afford SRS or have more important priorities that need to push SRS back a few years?

If I say I'm a woman, my therapist says I'm a woman, my doctor says I'm a woman, my orchi surgeon says I'm a woman, I'm a @%#$ woman and I want my paperwork to reflect that, not my cursed genitals.

Stopping at the genitals is purely a "you must PROVE your transexual" idea and it's ridiculous.

I'll support the idea that SRS is required for gender marker changes when SRS becomes an insurable procedure just like removing an appendix.

[sandra-leigh]

Sandra, did you read all of the 95 pages of the decision and really considered the implications?.

Stop trying to hide behind hypotheticals. We have members here now who cannot be operated on. Do they have to die on the operating table to prove they are transsexual enough to deserve a gender-marker change? Yes or No ?

Kate indicated that she believes that SRS should be mandatory for gender marker change in all circumstances. Do you still agree with that as you previously indicated? Yes or No?

[Kathryn Martin]

Sorry, I do not engage in this kind of discourse.


Stop trying to hide behind hypotheticals. We have members here now who cannot be operated on. Do they have to die on the operating table to prove they are transsexual enough to deserve a gender-marker change? Yes or No ?

Kate indicated that she believes that SRS should be mandatory for gender marker change in all circumstances. Do you still agree with that as you previously indicated? Yes or No?

[Badtranny]

Hmmmm, the rules are already very liberal here in lovely California. All I need for a gender marker change on the court order, and thus the Birth Certificate (I was born here), as well as the DMV is a letter from my doctor testifying that I have had "appropriate clinical treatment for gender transition". That verbiage is also the same to get the passport changed so the Feds must have spent some time in sunny CA. There is NO standard for what would be deemed appropriate, and the law states specifically that SRS is NOT required. In my case, I've had FFS, an Orchi, and breast augmentation, as well as nearly two years of HRT so I think I qualify under all but the "Kate Rule". Sorry ladies, don't hate the player, hate the game. ;-)

[ZosKiaCultusC7]

Are we seriously worried about some nut who wants to pretend he's legally a girl slipping by? Who cares...

If I can get an F on my driver's license, I should be able to get an F on my birth certificate, passport, etc.

Why should I be stuck with a false designation because I either can't afford SRS or have more important priorities that need to push SRS back a few years?

If I say I'm a woman, my therapist says I'm a woman, my doctor says I'm a woman, my orchi surgeon says I'm a woman, I'm a @%#$ woman and I want my paperwork to reflect that, not my cursed genitals.

Stopping at the genitals is purely a "you must PROVE your transexual" idea and it's ridiculous.

I'll support the idea that SRS is required for gender marker changes when SRS becomes an insurable procedure just like removing an appendix.

I agree; it's bullshit that surgery is a requirement for a birth certificate change. Like you said, what about those who can't afford it? What about those that don't want to go through with SRS or those that can't due to health risks? I'm surprised that this is even a requirement anymore. I'm more-so surprised that it's still a requirement in my state (Washington), as well as my birth state (Oregon).

[Bree-asaurus]

Hmmmm, the rules are already very liberal here in lovely California. All I need for a gender marker change on the court order, and thus the Birth Certificate (I was born here), as well as the DMV is a letter from my doctor testifying that I have had "appropriate clinical treatment for gender transition". That verbiage is also the same to get the passport changed so the Feds must have spent some time in sunny CA. There is NO standard for what would be deemed appropriate, and the law states specifically that SRS is NOT required. In my case, I've had FFS, an Orchi, and breast augmentation, as well as nearly two years of HRT so I think I qualify under all but the "Kate Rule". Sorry ladies, don't hate the player, hate the game. ;-)

Well my birth certificate is from CA... so hopefully I can get it changed relatively easily. Not sure how to do this since I'm in Texas...

[ZosKiaCultusC7]

Well my birth certificate is from CA... so hopefully I can get it changed relatively easily. Not sure how to do this since I'm in Texas...

Well, since everything requires a court order, I'm assuming that you'd have to attend a court hearing. I doubt a phone hearing would be possible so you would probably have to travel. I know that for California, name changes from other states (e.g. Texas) can be carried over but I'm not too sure if they require a California court hearing to change and reissue your vital records. I don't see why they would require a second court order, though: "If you obtained your court order from a court in another state, district, or territory of the United States, the order can be used to amend a California birth certificate." (http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/nc300.pdf)

I don't know if you've done any research for the forms and information regarding gender changes on your birth certificate but it seems like they make the non-SRS process difficult to find. However, I found the form:
http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/nc300.pdf

Here is some additional information in case you want it:
http://transgenderlawcenter.org/cms/content/id-document-change

Maybe I'll get lucky and there will be something like this out there for Oregon. :sad:

[Bree-asaurus]

Well, since everything requires a court order, I'm assuming that you'd have to attend a court hearing. I doubt a phone hearing would be possible so you would probably have to travel. I know that for California, name changes from other states (e.g. Texas) can be carried over but I'm not too sure if they require a California court hearing to change and reissue your vital records. I don't see why they would require a second court order, though: "If you obtained your court order from a court in another state, district, or territory of the United States, the order can be used to amend a California birth certificate." (http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/nc300.pdf)

I don't know if you've done any research for the forms and information regarding gender changes on your birth certificate but it seems like they make the non-SRS process difficult to find. However, I found the form:
http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/nc300.pdf

Here is some additional information in case you want it:
http://transgenderlawcenter.org/cms/content/id-document-change

Maybe I'll get lucky and there will be something like this out there for Oregon. :sad:

I do have a court order. That's what I had to use to change the gender marker on my license and for my SS#

Thanks for digging up the info. I just haven't gotten around to it yet.

[ZosKiaCultusC7]

Not a problem. I love to research.

[noeleena]

Hi,

This may be so ether way for transexuals does not do much for us intersexed, does it, thats the other side of the coin, those of us who have both sets of sex organs where does that leave us, are we male or female quess what im both yet still had to have my certs changed to what i am all i need do is concider what am i.
I can be ether, though you all here know what i am so no probs its haveing that recorded for govt departs & the paper trail.

The delemer is females saying they are men & then give birth or men saying they are female then still give sperm. its confusing enough now as it is , no wonder so joe public is not accepting whats going on yet they have to accept the changes,

Comes down to whos female & whos male, one can of worms,all round,

...noeleena...

[Kathryn Martin]

I just came across the following article (http://www.rcinet.ca/english/news/11_59_50_2012-04-21-ontario-human-rights-tribunal-issues-ruling-on-transgenders/#form-comment) printed by CBC. It is in my view a gross misrepresentation of the Tribunals decision, and it is these pieces what we will face regarding this decision. The public, and that means the lawmakers who now have to change the law will likely view this in this way.

The article read in full:


"The human rights tribunal in the province of Ontario has ruled that a person's gender should be recognized according to the person's lifestyle. The tribunal's ruling came in connection with controversy surrounding new birth certificates for citizens who changed their gender in later life. The tribunal decided that it is discriminatory to require transgender people to undergo surgery before the gender on their birth certificates may be changed. The tribunal says that those who consider themselves to be transgender should get new birth certificates without sex-change surgery."The statement that gender should be recognized "according to a persons lifestyle" misrepresents what the transsexual and transgender phenomenon is in a way that is hugely damaging for all of us. It is also not at all what the tribunal said in it's decision.

What the decision said in part was:


[145] In my view, the VSA (http://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-v4/latest/rso-1990-c-v4.html)’s requirement that the sex designation on a birth certificate reflect the person’s genitalia as observed at birth clearly affects transgendered persons differently than non-transgendered persons because of the “special characteristics” of transgendered persons. Obviously, non-transgendered persons may readily obtain a birth certificate with a sex designation that is congruent with their gender identity or their sense of “who they are” just by virtue of the fact that they are not transgendered. A transgendered person, on the other hand, by definition, has a gender identity which is incongruent with the sex assigned at birth. Accordingly, I find that the legislative scheme for issuing birth certificates under the VSA (http://www.canlii.org/en/on/laws/stat/rso-1990-c-v4/latest/rso-1990-c-v4.html) has a differential impact on transgendered persons. The entire decision does not mention once the word "lifestyle". On the contrary, it outlines that transgender persons, because of their peculiar gender condition do not make choices to live a life that is the reality of all of us. I have written to CBC requesting that the article be amended to correctly reflect the decision and to ensure that this opinion that this is a "lifestyle" be removed.


The fact that this is the impression created in the mind of the public however is very damaging in that it perpetuates the stereotype that we are trying to overcome.

[Empress Lainie]

Bree I read somewhere that in CA you can get your birth certificate changed without surgery..may be wrong though!

I was born in Texas and they require surgery of some sort and a physicians letter that irreversible surgery has occurred. An orchie will do it, maybe even breast implants.

I tried to get the governor and a state legislator to change the law but they didn't even respond to my letter.l

[Katesback]

You know Sandra I was very specific and clear and you took your own spin on what I said so I will re clarify what I was talking about. I was talking about a birth certificate. I was NOT talking about any other paperwork. I was not talking about drivers license or ss or any other thing. JUST birth certificate.

And yes I do think its a stretch and if I was a ligislator I would NEVER vote to allow a person with testicles to get a female on his birth certificate.

I hate to say this but damm if that was the case then what the hell is a male and a female. Should there be no sex designation? Im sorry but its just too much. Another point of view is that I and girls that no longer have testicles have EARNED the female designation. It seems silly that someone that has not earned it should get it. Anything worth a crap in life is hard and for someone to have the easy route they simple dont earn it. Its a slap across a post op womans face as well as the general population to visualize males getting a female designation on thier birth certificate. YA got testicles your male simple as that.


Oh well I will just sit here and shake my head and know that its not likely that this legislation will become law and for a god damm good reason I might add.

Katie

PS For those that claim they cannot afford SRS or are afraid of surgery or have health reasons there is always an orchie. Last time I checked they arent very expensive and are a very minor surgery. I am no expert on orchies since I think they are a cop out but hell at least theres no testicles and that would be acceptable in my book for a birth certificate change. Only problem is you still walk around with a penis between your legs. Yuck. Ya wont be able to convince many people your female when ya got that between your legs. Well you can convince Melody because shes all for the gender in your head thing.

[ReineD]

Another point of view is that I and girls that no longer have testicles have EARNED the female designation. It seems silly that someone that has not earned it should get it. Anything worth a crap in life is hard and for someone to have the easy route they simple dont earn it. Its a slap across a post op womans face as well as the general population to visualize males getting a female designation on thier birth certificate. YA got testicles your male simple as that.

It's a difficult situation. What of the MtFs who live and work full time as the women they are, who wholly feel they are women, are seen as woman by the people in their lives, yet cannot have the surgery for health or economical reasons? Should they be denied the recognition of their true gender?

I'm raising this as a point of discussion for everyone. I just don't think it's as black and white as Kate suggests.

[Badtranny]

I just don't think it's as black and white as Kate suggests.

Few things are as black and white as many would like them to be. In my case, people will assume that everything is done and I will leave it at that. Basically the rules don't apply since I don't give a damn about the rules. ;-)

[Katesback]

Renine:

I know many girls that get all thier paperwork in order except a birth certificate prior to SRS.

Now last time I checked I have NEVER had to provide a birth certificate for ANYTHING except getting married. You dont need it for a job, you dont need it for much of anything. Or because someone will probably point out to me some obscure instance you need a birth certificate in life I will suggest that if that is the case your probably also going to get a physical and ummmmmmmm ya got testicles and hey thats male no matter what the birth certificate says.

[ReineD]

I don't want to keep jumping in here (hoping others will give in their two cents), but birth certificates are also required for passports. And of course younger people need them for social security cards and school enrollment, but I guess this falls outside of this discussion.

[amielts]

This is a great ruling. Transwomen are women because they are BORN THIS WAY. Anything that implies otherwise denigrates all of us.

In fact, I would like to see all genital-based gender marker correction laws repealed everywhere. Either we should all have the right to correct our gender marker, as in the UK and California, or we all should not, as in Thailand and Ohio.