Changing your birth certificate sex

[Kate T]

A majority (?all?) transsexuals either wish to or will change their sex on their birth certificate. I understand the need to do this, both from a legal point of view but more importantly from the need for this in order to reflect who you truly are, i.e. a woman / man. Please understand that my following questions are in no way intended to offend anyone nor do I believe that a TS individual should not be able to change their birth certificate to reflect their true gender.
My question derives from a purely scientific and epidemiologic approach in that does this alter the epidemiology of certain investigations? Whilst it is unlikely that the small percentage of individuals who do change their sex on their birth certificate is unlikely to alter large scale studies, is it possible that it may alter smaller studies or those targeted at transsexual individuals for example analysis of the "DES Sons"? Would it alter the analysis of say breast cancer development in women on HRT?
Again I would like to say I intend no offence but I am interested in understanding the process from a purely scientific / medical point of view (I am a veterinarian).

[Kaitlyn Michele]

The number of transsexuals in the world is not statistically significant...what that means is that in studies that happen to include a transsexual, any alteration of that study will not be statistically significant unless the sample size is incredibly low...if the sample size for any study is low, then that test is prone to all kinds of errors, and including a transsexual would be very low on the list of errors..

what could you possibly get out of the answer to this question, i'd love to know in some detail what you are getting at.. especially as a vet (curiousity does kill cats you know...)

[Frances]

The obsession with causality belongs to cis-gendered people. If you have SRS, does still need to find out your karyotype afterwards, for instance? My mother may have taken DES, my karyotype may be XXY... or not. I have a vagina and had my birth certificate changed. I have no interest in causes at this point. I am already in the "had SRS" statistical group. How many groups do I have to belong to, and how will I benefit by being included?

[Stephanie-L]

I suspect your initial assertion that most or all transsexuals will want their birth certificate altered may be in error. I do not plan on doing this on the advice of my lawyer, who is herself a transsexual. Her logic is that it adds a degree of complexity, cost and difficulty that is not only unneeded but can cause problems. For instance, if you plan on staying married, as I do, this may cause problems with social security at retirement. I do realize that many feel a need to make this change, but I would also bet that many do not feel as strongly, or simply just don't care. Face it, I am 53, I have not had to show my birth certificate to anyone in decades. Also, it would be a significant expense and require significant effort, in my case it would take traveling to the state of my birth, hiring yet another lawyer, etc. Also, there are a number of states that either do not allow the birth certificate to be altered, or simply amend it, stamping the new one with a big red "amended" stamp, even less appealing to me. So, since you may have an error in your initial assertion, your whole statistical basis may be flawed........................Stephanie

[Frances]

In the province where I live in my country, the birth certificate has to be changed before changing any other gender marker. No new birth certificate, no F on a driver's licence or social security file.

[kellycan27]

I suspect your initial assertion that most or all transsexuals will want their birth certificate altered may be in error. I do not plan on doing this on the advice of my lawyer, who is herself a transsexual. Her logic is that it adds a degree of complexity, cost and difficulty that is not only unneeded but can cause problems. For instance, if you plan on staying married, as I do, this may cause problems with social security at retirement. I do realize that many feel a need to make this change, but I would also bet that many do not feel as strongly, or simply just don't care. Face it, I am 53, I have not had to show my birth certificate to anyone in decades. Also, it would be a significant expense and require significant effort, in my case it would take traveling to the state of my birth, hiring yet another lawyer, etc. Also, there are a number of states that either do not allow the birth certificate to be altered, or simply amend it, stamping the new one with a big red "amended" stamp, even less appealing to me. So, since you may have an error in your initial assertion, your whole statistical basis may be flawed........................Stephanie


Your lawyer doesn't have it quite right. While the state and fed may allow you to change your gender marker you will always be "Joe" to them. If you are and stay married after transition.... Nothing changes. Your social security and retirement are based on your tax ID number ( which remains the same) not your sex. You will still have the luxury of filing a joint Federal tax return unlike those who marry after transition. We are not allowed to file a joint return because even though I was allowed to change my sex the fed and most states don't recognize my changes. The fed and most states don't recognize same sex marriages ( same sex because you're still Joe in their eyes).

[Rianna Humble]

A majority (?all?) transsexuals either wish to or will change their sex on their birth certificate. I understand the need to do this, both from a legal point of view but more importantly from the need for this in order to reflect who you truly are, i.e. a woman / man. Please understand that my following questions are in no way intended to offend anyone nor do I believe that a TS individual should not be able to change their birth certificate to reflect their true gender.
My question derives from a purely scientific and epidemiologic approach in that does this alter the epidemiology of certain investigations?

Why would they require a birth certificate to include you in a scientific study. As far as I am aware that is not done to cisgendered people where I live.


While the state and fed may allow you to change your gender marker you will always be "Joe" to them.

This is apparently jurisdiction-specific. In the jurisdiction where I live, I already have my taxes etc. in my current name, but I cannot have a passport which shows me as female unless my Birth Certificate says that is what I am.

Strangely enough, my drivers license does show me as female if you know how to interpret the driver number (we don't have anything as simple as M/F on our licenses)

[Badtranny]

In beautiful California you can change the gender on your birth certificate as long as you've had enough surgery. In my case, the Orchi and boobs were sufficient to make me legal. (same with SSA info) HOWEVER, that only applies to the public record. The original is still available to law enforcement or the feds but it takes a court order to see it.

Basically, nobody will ever see the original unless a judge deems it necessary.

[Nigella]

This is apparently jurisdiction-specific. In the jurisdiction where I live, I already have my taxes etc. in my current name, but I cannot have a passport which shows me as female unless my Birth Certificate says that is what I am.

Strangely enough, my drivers license does show me as female if you know how to interpret the driver number (we don't have anything as simple as M/F on our licenses)

As a side note to the thread, but on the same lines, within the UK, you can have any official document altered to read F, with the exception of your birth certificate, all that is required is a letter from your gender clinic stating that you are TS and will not be likely to revert to your birth gender. The alteration of your birth certificate requires a specific piece of paper, the cost of which is too high for me to pay, and I'm not talking monetary value.

To the OP, surely the majority of these type of studies are carried out in person, therefore the gender of the person being studied will already be known? If you are looking at a random postal/non verbal study, then that can be skewed by anyone filling out the study questionaire. In all studies there is an inbuilt error ratio, so the odd "TS" woman is not going to make any difference to the overal results

[FurPus63]

Absolutely! That's the whole problem with being TS. It's cool for those who stay married (a small percentage of "lucky" ones who's wife can handle the change. But most of us don't. So...for tax purposes, and marriage purposes it sucks! That's why people get their birth certificates changed. They might not be able to do anything about their tax code, but they can now legally marrry and in the case of my state (Michigan) can get the "M" changed to an "F" on the drivers license. Although the process sucks and the hassle is terrible, I know that once I have my surgery and have a vagina it's going to be difficult for me to keep my "M" on my driver's license and I definately want to re-marry someday. Just because that's who I am. I not into living with someone as a partner for the rest of my life without being married. So eventually despite the hassles involved I probably will eventually get my birth certificate changed. Who cares about scientific studies and statistics.

[Nigella]

OK this thread has gone off topic so to get it back, please respond to the following pertinent part of the OP and not anything else in relation to changing gender markers. That is a topic for another thread if necessary


Whilst it is unlikely that the small percentage of individuals who do change their sex on their birth certificate is unlikely to alter large scale studies, is it possible that it may alter smaller studies or those targeted at transsexual individuals for example analysis of the "DES Sons"? Would it alter the analysis of say breast cancer development in women on HRT?

[Michelle.M]

A majority (?all?) transsexuals either wish to or will change their sex on their birth certificate.

Well, I do and so do my friends, but that's somewhat of an unsupported generalization, don't you think?


My question derives from a purely scientific and epidemiologic approach in that does this alter the epidemiology of certain investigations? Whilst it is unlikely that the small percentage of individuals who do change their sex on their birth certificate is unlikely to alter large scale studies, is it possible that it may alter smaller studies or those targeted at transsexual individuals for example analysis of the "DES Sons"?

Hmmm . . . interesting premise but I think Kaitlyn Michele's got it right. The total transgender population (at least in the US) is presumed to be less than 1%, so I'd have to agree that this would not be statistically significant from an overall data collection / data analysis viewpoint.


Would it alter the analysis of say breast cancer development in women on HRT?

Now that's an interesting notion! We do become part of certain medical databases as we get further along in our physical transition. We become part of the female (vice male) risk population for breast cancer, osteoporosis, iron deficiency and a variety of other typically female issues. But again, I don't think we're actually flooding the study population with sufficient numbers to alter any data sets.


I suspect your initial assertion that most or all transsexuals will want their birth certificate altered may be in error. I do not plan on doing this on the advice of my lawyer, who is herself a transsexual.

I suspect that we have the same lawyer, and she offered me the same advice.


Her logic is that it adds a degree of complexity, cost and difficulty that is not only unneeded but can cause problems.

The reason that advice was not relevant to me was that her life situation, goals, marital status and other work and legal issues are not at all like mine, so none of that applied. In my case, a new birth certificate solves several problems and causes none.


For instance, if you plan on staying married, as I do, this may cause problems with social security at retirement.

Nope. Check with SSA, they'll give you all the info you require on that.

As far as marriages go the legitimacy is based on the conditions that existed on the date of the marriage certificate. If your marriage certificate shows you (with your old name), a man, married to your wife, a woman, then here in Texas that's considered a legal marriage. That your name and gender changed later doesn't alter that past event.

That's the fundamental fallacy of opposition to same-sex marriages. As soon as you have met all the legal requirements to change your gender you'll actually have a same-sex marriage, even though you've got a "traditional" marriage on paper. Crazy, huh?


Also, it would be a significant expense and require significant effort, in my case it would take traveling to the state of my birth, hiring yet another lawyer, etc.

Laws on this do vary from state to state, and I'm sorry your birth state requires that. For me (I was not born in Texas) it's simply a paperwork drill.


Also, there are a number of states that either do not allow the birth certificate to be altered, or simply amend it, stamping the new one with a big red "amended" stamp

Almost all do, except for a few. This from Wikipedia:

"Only Idaho, Ohio, Tennessee, and Texas refuse to change the sex, though Texas will do so if a court order is presented."

And you're right, several states just amend. My state issues a new one and seals the old one, so I will be submitting for a changed certificate.


stamping the new one with a big red "amended" stamp, even less appealing to me.

OK, then! No worries!


In the jurisdiction where I live, I already have my taxes etc. in my current name, but I cannot have a passport which shows me as female unless my Birth Certificate says that is what I am.

Hmm . . . I suppose laws vary from country to country, but here in the US that's not the case. I got mine with a court order and a letter from a physician and I backed it up with my new Social Security card and driver's license.

[Kate T]

Sorry for replying this way but I am really dodgy at multi quoting.

Kaitlyn, my interest I guess is sheer and purely academic. Whilst being a veterinarian and my day job is about animals and animal diseases, medical and scientific studies of all varieties interest me. Sometimes information from studies in the human field informs my veterinary field, sometimes the other way round. Consequently I have developed a keen interest in "analyzing" the studies to find which are flawed and which are valid. One of the first and key elements of any study is "does the study population reflect the target population". I absolutely concur with yourself and with everyone else who has pointed out that in the case of a study where the target population is women generally (or even a majority of subsets of women e.g. those over 50 or under 20 etc. etc.) that the small percentage of TS individuals who may get "caught up" in the study is likely to be insignificant and most of those could be screened out by the study methods (e.g. by genetic screen of blood samples of study participants or simply asking the study participants if there was any reason why they could not participate in a study targeted at genetic females), I was just trying to imagine whether there would be any case where the correction of birth sex may lead to an individual not participating in a study that may benefit them or the community generally.

To Stephanie and Michelle, absolutely you are correct that I have made an original assumption. I guess I made the assumption of the likelihood of a TS changing their birth certificate based on my impressions from comments on these forums and the internet.

To Rianna and Nigella, my premise was based on using birth sex as indicated on birth certificate as a criteria to start a selection process for possible participants in a study. For example, a study on the incidence of breast cancer in men would as it's base use the number of males in the population as indicated by some sort of officially collected data. Or more specifically, lets say that there was a study looking for a possible link between a certain gene, exposure to a particular cause (it could be a chemical or some other factor) that was known to only occur at a specified location for a specified time and breast cancer development in men. I know that sounds very convoluted and specific but believe me it is not as uncommon example as you might imagine. Now your target / at risk population is all genetic males born between a certain date at a certain location. One way of identifying individuals in this target population would be to look at birth certificates. If the birth certificate indicated an individual was Female then they would be exclude from the study. Would this affect the study conclusions? probably not for that scenario (particularly as most TS I assume, again, would be on HRT which would likely swamp any prenatal exposure effects and consequently exclude them from the study anyway). Are there any scenarios in which alteration of the birth sex of an individual would exclude enough individuals to affect the results. One would also presume that those designing such studies would recognise this as a possible source of bias and attempt to either negate or compensate for it, however sometimes study designers can make the most extraordinary assumptions (witness the widespread assumption within the psychological community until relatively recently that a TS individual was heterosexual in their target gender).

I guess my interest lies in making sure that TS individuals are not "overlooked" and do not receive important health or wellbeing benefits due to innaccurate assumptions being made.

[LeaP]

Alina, I know that you didn't intend this, but it is impossible not to draw implications of truth or finality regarding sex and gender in your OP. There is no single characteristic or combination of characteristics that determine who is male and who is female, even limiting the assessment to physicality. Not chromosomes, not gonads, not hormones, and certainly not secondary sex characteristics.

Perhaps the question is really whether sex is fine-grained enough for a given study. For most it probably is. Anyone studying something like DES, however, is hopefully aware enough of the implications to allow for something like sex marker changes. Hormones and breast cancer? Maybe, maybe not ... depends on the nature of the study.

[Kate T]

Lea

Your point is valid and you are right to call me out. Through both society views but also my profession where sex is used constantly as a categorising tool I will admit to still having an ingrained attitude of the "truthfullness" of binary sex classification. The thing is that I know from a logical and professional analysis of the data that this is just not a valid assumption or attitude to hold. I just need to break a 40 year old habit :)

I think you are right too in that for the type of study that is likely to impact on the health and wellbeing of transsexuals then birth certificate sex is not going to be a useful categorisation or even condidate selection tool and consequently (hopefully!) shouldn't be used.

Thank you for bearing with me.