"Third Gender" declarations on German birth certificates. (1 Viewer)

[Crobat]

http://rt.com/news/third-gender-birth-germany-592/

I thought it was interesting.

IMO it's a good step in the right direction for Intersex equality. Granted Germany has still to legally recognise same-sex marriage, it's still good to see that they are somewhat dedicated to recognition

 

[Lolsmith]

Interesting post! Never heard about this before. Regarding the issue of same-sex marriage, it pains me to say I'm torn between which side I'm on. On one hand, I believe same-sex shouldn't be legalised in our country because of my Christian faith (Genesis 2:24 clearly states that marriage is to be between man and woman [Don't think I'm preaching, I'm just stating what I believe in]). On the other hand I believe LGBT have the same rights as heterosexual couples. It's unfair for them to suffer the abuse just because they're considered 'different' by our society. I remember doing a survey on same-sex marriage in my biblical studies, and it sparked a massive argument with voices shouting across the room. To be honest I didn't want this topic to be brought because it's so difficult to find a black and white answer as these things can cause conflict. Anyway, it was the teacher's choice to bring it up so I'm not complaining. I guess it really comes down to the decisions that we all make, sometimes they may not be popular, but that doesn't mean we should be judged, we all have free will, we can chose what we want to do.

It doesn't conflict with your beliefs to have same sex marriage exist as long as it doesn't occur within your faith's churches or practices. Having the state recognise a homosexual couple in marriage doesn't mean anything about the religious practice of marriage unless that marriage is recognised under God as well. You can still deem homosexuality or homosexual 'acts' as immoral without denying individuals their access to these institutions. Much in the same way you can deem sex outside of marriage as immoral but not make pre/extra-marital sex either illegal or deny the practicers access to public institutions that exist for others.

 

[Riproot]

http://rt.com/news/third-gender-birth-germany-592/

I thought it was interesting.

IMO it's a good step in the right direction for LGBT equality. Granted Germany has still to legally recognise same-sex marriage, it's still good to see that they are somewhat dedicated to recognition

'I' was the most important letter to have in this case, and you forgot it.

 

[Crobat]

'I' was the most important letter to have in this case, and you forgot it.

Yeah I did, sorry about that. I'll fix it now.

 

[Crobat]

Interesting post! Never heard about this before. Regarding the issue of same-sex marriage, it pains me to say I'm torn between which side I'm on. On one hand, I believe same-sex shouldn't be legalised in our country because of my Christian faith (Genesis 2:24 clearly states that marriage is to be between man and woman [Don't think I'm preaching, I'm just stating what I believe in]). On the other hand I believe LGBT have the same rights as heterosexual couples. It's unfair for them to suffer the abuse just because they're considered 'different' by our society. I remember doing a survey on same-sex marriage in my biblical studies, and it sparked a massive argument with voices shouting across the room. To be honest I didn't want this topic to be brought because it's so difficult to find a black and white answer as these things can cause conflict. Anyway, it was the teacher's choice to bring it up so I'm not complaining. I guess it really comes down to the decisions that we all make, sometimes they may not be popular, but that doesn't mean we should be judged, we all have free will, we can chose what we want to do.

I can respect that religiously it's immoral and a sin but on a grander scale there are people who don't share the same faith and so should not be forced to comply by every aspect of the Bible's teachings. The fact that people who are not religious are even able to marry is, I think, ground enough to suggest that anyone, regardless of sexuality, should also be able to marry. I see marriage as a celebration of love, and seeing as love is universal and a significant aspect of the human condition, I see no reason homosexuals, transexuals, or intersex people should be denied the right to celebrate love.

 

[JohnMaximus]

Not sure if hemaphrodites who end up choosing a gender would be happy with their uncomfortable deformation being permanently recorded on their birth certificates.
Especially when a birth certificate is something they may need to pull out regularly for their entire lives as proof of ID.

 

[Lolsmith]

Not sure if hemaphrodites who end up choosing a gender would be happy with their uncomfortable deformation being permanently recorded on their birth certificates.
Especially when a birth certificate is something they may need to pull out regularly for their entire lives as proof of ID.

They're probably more uncomfortable being referred to as deformed especially when it mentions in the article that:

The new law will come into force on November 1, on the back of a constitutional court decision which states that as long as a person “deeply feels” that they belong to a certain gender, they have a personal right to choose how they legally identify themselves.

Parents of newborn infants will be allowed to leave the gender form on the child’s birth certificate completely blank if it is born with unusual physical characteristics making it impossible to determine the gender.

 

[JohnMaximus]

They're probably more uncomfortable being referred to as deformed especially when it mentions in the article that:

Don't be naive, being born with an extra part is at least a mutation- if deformation is too offensive.

Also, I assumed that doesn't mean they change what is recorded on their birth certificate- they would still be defined as being born undefined.

 

[Lolsmith]

Don't be naive, being born with an extra part is at least a mutation- if deformation is too offensive.

Also, I assumed that doesn't mean they change what is recorded on their birth certificate- they would still be defined as being born undefined.

I wasn't being naive. Would you not take offence to being called deformed because someone thought you didn't fit what they considered normal?

It means they won't have their gender recorded at birth as decided by their parents. It will be left blank and then filled in or changed at the appropriate point in time during their life.

 

[JohnMaximus]

I wasn't being naive. Would you not take offence to being called deformed because someone thought you didn't fit what they considered normal?

It means they won't have their gender recorded at birth as decided by their parents. It will be left blank and then filled in or changed at the appropriate point in time during their life.

I have no idea how I would feel in that situation, but I'm thinking if I went to the effort of "correcting" it, I would be uncomfortable with something as significant as a birth certificate always reminding me- and potentially people around me- of it.

And deformed/mutated isn't a personal comment, or a comment on identity. It's a medical/scientific, if you want to go into statistics, I'm sure that being a hemaphrodite is statistically or scientifically highly unusual.

If what you say is true, I haven't much experience on this subject and didn't draw that from the article- of course that is a positive move, and the suggestion of a move toward something like that was the underlying idea behind my previous comment.

 

[Crobat]

Don't be naive, being born with an extra part is at least a mutation- if deformation is too offensive.

Also, I assumed that doesn't mean they change what is recorded on their birth certificate- they would still be defined as being born undefined.

Even so, it is the fact that the undertones suggest that they are some kind of abomination that shouldn't exist that is offensive. It's a matter of perception, really, and anything that outwardly offends, similar to the use of "faggot" to homosexuals, is, among other things, unjust and unreasonable. Just because they are anomalies to the norm doesn't automatically mean they have no right to existence and/or equality before the law. If you didn't mean 'deformation' to be offensive that is fine, but it's a matter for how they perceive themselves and the word just generally has a negative tone to it. You would think that some intersex people are actually proud of who they are, and are comfortable with who they are, just as ordinary male and females are. I think this change is a matter of recognising that. There is no reason to persecute on uncontrollable genetic differences is all.

 

[Graney]

Don't be naive, being born with an extra part is at least a mutation- if deformation is too offensive.

It's literally not a mutation, mutation refers to change in dna sequence, intersex is generally governed by a change in genotype. The number and type of sex chromosomes is something other than XX or XY, without any dna changes (mutation) within given genes.

 

[TheEntrepreneur]

Isn't marriage a christian convention? It is controlled by the Church so isn't it discrimination in a way if the law forces churches to let homosexuals wed? Cause I'm not sure

 

[SnowFox]

Isn't marriage a christian convention? It is controlled by the Church so isn't it discrimination in a way if the law forces churches to let homosexuals wed? Cause I'm not sure

Clearly.

 

[Crobat]

Isn't marriage a christian convention? It is controlled by the Church so isn't it discrimination in a way if the law forces churches to let homosexuals wed? Cause I'm not sure

I think you'll find that marriage is defined legally pertaining to the definition set in The Bible, that of a matrimony between a man and a woman, but since people outside of Christianity are able to marry, it would suggest that it's not solely a Christian convention. Considering that marriage is regulated by statutory law (i.e. Marriage Act 1961 (Cth)) and that law is autonomous, legalising same-sex marriage only opens it up to more of the population. It's not like Christians are going to be banned from marriage, so I can't see why it's discriminating against them just because it doesn't correlate to their beliefs. I don't believe asylum seekers should be stopped entirely from seeking asylum in Australia, but if they are stopped, it's not discriminating against me because of my beliefs, it's discriminating against them because they are directly affected.

 

[Lolsmith]

Isn't marriage a christian convention? It is controlled by the Church so isn't it discrimination in a way if the law forces churches to let homosexuals wed? Cause I'm not sure

Not at all. Marriage existed before Christianity and exists outside of Christianity (the most glaring examples being atheists, Jews and Muslims). Forcing an institution to be inclusive isn't discriminatory, no. But it isn't correct either. Churches shouldn't have to marry anyone they don't want to, whether it's a part of their belief system or not.

 

[Riproot]

Not sure if hemaphrodites who end up choosing a gender would be happy with their uncomfortable deformation being permanently recorded on their birth certificates.
Especially when a birth certificate is something they may need to pull out regularly for their entire lives as proof of ID.

Wow
Please study up on reproduction

It's literally not a mutation, mutation refers to change in dna sequence, intersex is generally governed by a change in genotype. The number and type of sex chromosomes is something other than XX or XY, without any dna changes (mutation) within given genes.

yep
Disjunction of meiosis in oocytes ~~~
Although, deletion of SYF base pairs on Y can lead to some pseudohermaphrodite qualities